GM Pulls Ads From L.A. Times

[mubs]

Dan Neil, auto critic for the L.A. Times, wrote a scathing review of the Pontiac G6 on Wednesday. While I had no interest in the car, Dan has a way with words I find amusing, and I was shaking my head as I read his review. In it he recommends that the company dump Rick Wagoner, Chairman & CEO.

Today the paper reports that the company is pulling its ads.

This can only hurt the company; the paper is one of the largest in the U.S., and serves the hot S. CA market. They just proved everything he said (about the company, don't know about the car) is true.

Disclaimer: ID, PW required, get it from BugMeNot

 

[Handruin]

I got a good chuckle out of this line:

I like the soft grip on the hand brake. That exhausts my praise for the interior.

:rofl:

This I can't fathom:

Performance: The GT model I drove had a 3.5-liter iron-block V6 under the hood, good for 200 horsepower and no surprises at all. And — though I can't believe I'm writing this sentence in 2005 — this pushrod six is mated to a four-speed automatic transmission. It is because of this powertrain that the phrase "thrashy and unrefined" has become the hackneyed cliché that it has.

Only 200 HP (220 lb-ft) out of a 3.5 liter...I would have expected a lot more out of an engine that big.

btw, I didn't need BugMeNot for some reasons...

 

[LiamC]

Hmmm, early on in the piece, Mr. Neil targets Bob--we can sell 40 000 Monaro/GTO a year--Lutz. Given his track record (or lack of), I'd say say Mr. Lutz hasn't got his finger on the pulse. And neither do the Aussie motoring press because they were saying how "visionary" Mr. Lutz was.

Good piece. Seems to make sense. Maybe GM should hire Dan Neil.

 

[jtr1962]

I read here that for various reasons GM credit is close to junk bond status at this point.

All three domestic automakers are hurting and will continue to hurt even more as gas prices go up. Instead of making the more efficient cars and EVs that people will want in a few years, they'll continue to make gas-guzzling turkeys. Deja-vu anyone? Remember how they were nearly put out of business in the late 70s/early 80s because they failed to make the smaller cars Americans were looking for?

 

[Pradeep]

Only 200 HP (220 lb-ft) out of a 3.5 liter...I would have expected a lot more out of an engine that big.

Even the Ford 500 gets 203HP from a decades old 3 litre engine (using that cutting edge 4 valve per cylinder tech) :roll: And they had the decency to mate it to a 6 speed auto or CVT.

I'm surprised GM hasn't looked at using the Holden Commodore platform from Aus, instead of the more expensive/elite GTO. Rear wheel drive, 4 dour sedans, with rear wheel drive and engine options up to 5.7 liter V8s. Apparently the Chrysler 300/ Dodge Magnum are very hot sellers, it would make sense to have something that could perhaps compete in that area.

 

[Buck]

As much as I'd like to have a more fuel efficient car, the cost of a new vehicle is to high. I average 25 mpg, pay less then $50.00 a year for registration and only a few hundred dollars in insurance premiums - no car payments.

 

[jtr1962]

As much as I'd like to have a more fuel efficient car, the cost of a new vehicle is to high. I average 25 mpg, pay less then $50.00 a year for registration and only a few hundred dollars in insurance premiums - no car payments.

The sad thing is that you would be hard pressed to find something new from the big three which is any better than what you're driving. That's part of the reason GM is hurting. Nobody is going to want to buy a new car if it's technically no better than what they're driving in terms of economy, power, or amenities. The American auto industry is about the least innovative business I've ever seen.

 

[Fushigi]

First quarter sales.

 

[Buck]

Nice chart, thanks Fushigi. Volkswagen should also include Skoda.

Granted, there are laws of physics that limit certain characteristics of an automobile, but I would also prefer to stay with a mid-size car like mine and still average the higher (40+) miles per gallon. Oh, and call me strange, but I would also require a high level of quality, good customer service, and decent power (at a minimum, more than I have now (which shouldn't be too difficult)), all for a reasonable price - at least reasonable in my eyes (if the mood hits me, I can be a reasonable person).

 

[Handruin]

My comment about the pontiac 3.5 V6 comes in comparison to my 2.4 inline 4 cyl. My engine produces the same 200 HP, but is more than one liter smaller.

In the summer time I typically get between 30-34 MPG, and 28-30 in the winter. Granted the torque on my 2.4 isn't as high as the GM 3.5 (166 lb-ft if I remember correctly), but my car is faster to 60 MPH than the G6 by almost a full second 7.5 vs 8-8.5.

That is a nice chart, fushigi. GM sells a ton of cars. Maybe they should offer less models, and focus on making them more competative.

 

[Fushigi]

Buck, I fully understand where you're coming from. My car has been paid off for four years. I just rolled 100K miles last week. Everything on the car works and non-wear repairs have been trivial. From a reliability standpoint, I don't see why I couldn't drive this car another 100K. Quality parts & construction. And my dealer service has been great. Enough that I go there even for oil changes and they give me discount on larger service intervals (30/60/90K).

I'm no lightweight with the gas pedal, yet I still average 22-24 city and 26-27 highway (EPA rating when new was 19/27).

Even if I had to rebuild the engine and the trans, it'd still be less expensive than taking on a new car payment.

And that's the rub. I wouldn't mind buying a more fuel efficient vehicle and/or one with improved safety features, but the gains in efficiency aren't that great unless you go hybrid and the price premium for hybrids is still too high. Add higher insurance and actually taking on a payment and my monthly expenses would be way higher if I bought another vehicle. My comfort and convenience is still fine. The leather seats don't have any cracks. I've acquired a few door dings over the years and since the parking spaces at the office are narrow I'm probably happier to park this car than I would be a new one.

 

[LOST6200]

Yeah, this G6 sucks.

 

[CougTek]

And we are now in 2006 and they still come with a four-speed automatic transmission.

To their credit, GM's new cars have better chassis than the models they replaced. The G6, while not in the same ball park as the Camry/Accord or even the new Sonata, is way better than the Grand Am. Same thing for the Cobalt compared to the Cavalier/Sunfire. Now that they've got the chassis right, it would be a good idea to developp something remotely modern for the engine and transmission. The G6 with a 3L V6 that would developp around 220HP AND with at least a five-speed automatic transmission would suddenly become an appealing alternative, if it would be priced one or two thousand less than a similarly equipped japanese.

And I think the Malibu is a better value right now in GM's port-folio. It's cheaper and it features excellent crash protection according to the IIHS. I think the G6 and the Malibu both share the same chassis too (epsilon platform).

 

[Fushigi]

I just rolled 100K miles last week.

Mile number 111111 went by last week. Still no issues that make me want to consider buying a new car.

 

[Bozo]

The Malibo and G6 'borrowed' the platform from SAAB. Now leave it to GM's engineers to screw it up.

Bozo :mrgrn:

 

[CougTek]

Now, now, now. Don't make Clocker cry.

 

[CougTek]

I just rolled 100K miles last week.

Mile number 111111 went by last week.

Based on my calculations, Fush is driving a little less than 15000 miles per year or close to 24000Km. With his 25mpg car, he pumps almost 600 gallons into his tank per year. At 3U$ per gallon, Fushigi spends around 1800U$ per year to feed his four wheelers.

I drive some 30000Km per year on average and at 1$CAD per liter, I spend roughly 2250$CAD per year just in fuel to fill my 32mpg car.

I pay ~200$CAD more than Fushigi in fuel per year.

Conclusions : 1) Gas is cheaper in the U.S. than here. 2) I have to find a way to drive less.

 

[Pradeep]

Average gas price in the US would prob be closer to $2.50, making it even cheaper for Fushigi :mrgrn:

 

[Clocker]

The Malibo and G6 'borrowed' the platform from SAAB. Now leave it to GM's engineers to screw it up.

Bozo :mrgrn:

Wow. Your utter ignorance about automotive design, engineering & manufacturing is really showing. You & Coug might want to limit yourself to typing about things you have first-hand knowledge of rather than looking at a buff-book and thinking you have knowledge about the industry. Do you really even know what the Epsilon 'platform' is comprised of? Probably not until you just did a google search on it. And then you still won't really have any real knowlege about the design(s).

BTW, Saab's engineers ARE GM engineers. We share work & collaborate on projects very frequently because we tend to develop programs that can be adapted globally, not just for specific markets. I've collaborated with GM engineers from around the world (GM do Brasil, GM Europe (including GM Saab), & GM Asia-Pacific). We all can do equally great engineering/design. The one big differentiator in designs today is the cost allowed in the execution. Can everyone afford to pay for the extra cost that you find in some Saab or Cadillac designs? Absolutely not. That's why those divisions have been relatively small players in the industry and will continue to be (especially Saab). They fit one of the premium niches we want to have.

To expect a down market G6 or Malibu to have all the same design features of a relatively low volume Saab 93 which sells for a much higher price is completely idiotic & economically infeasible. With that said, the G6/Malibu platform is excellent & I would probably own one today if I were in the market for a vehicle (& did not already have a Sigma platform sitting in my garage). They are excellent values.

 

[ddrueding]

Gas needs to be MUCH more expensive before it will play a real role in car decisions (therefore eventually design and market direction).

I drive about 40k miles a year (my 2003 has over 130k miles on it). I get about 30mpg (360mi on 12gal, consistently, regardless on City/Hwy).

Assuming today's gas prices where I live ($2.50), that is $3333.33 a year. If I picked a really sporty car (25mpg) instead of a miserly one (40mpg), the difference is hardly a car payment:

40,000 / 25 * 2.50 = $4,000/yr
40,000 / 40 * 2.50 = $2,500/yr

True, higher gas prices would hurt me more than most, but I'm looking forward to it, as it will be a good thing for the world in general. There are 2 ways to make nuclear/solar/wind more cost-effective; the easiest way is to drive oil over $150/barrel.

 

[jtr1962]

True, higher gas prices would hurt me more than most, but I'm looking forward to it, as it will be a good thing for the world in general. There are 2 ways to make nuclear/solar/wind more cost-effective; the easiest way is to drive oil over $150/barrel.

Your $1500 a year difference is not an insignificant amount to many people. Given that many households are already living on borrowed money, any increase in fuel prices means less spending elsewhere which in turn hurts the economy. I'll also add that from my perspective spending $1500 total a year on transportation, never mind $1500 a year more than what you're already spending, seems like an exorbitant sum. I can get a monthly Metrocard for $76 and ride the subways as often as I want every single day for a total of $912 annually, and I feel even spending that much on transportation would be too much. It frequently amazes me the huge sums people spend on cars, which incidentally sit parked for probably 22 hours or more a day on average (i.e. terrible utilization of a valuable capital asset), without batting an eyelid. Everytime I analyze the economics of owning a car I come to the same conclusion. It's just not worth it with cars costing $25000 unless they are used at least 20,000 miles a year, and don't require additional money for fuel, insurance, or repairs. Oh, and also last about 500,000 miles as well. Total cost per mile then would be about $0.05, or about the same as riding the subway 20,000 miles a year with monthly Metrocards would cost you.

 

[ddrueding]

Your $1500 a year difference is not an insignificant amount to many people. Given that many households are already living on borrowed money, any increase in fuel prices means less spending elsewhere which in turn hurts the economy.

Those people obviously won't be buying a $62,000 Porsche. I'll get back to this point.

I'll also add that from my perspective spending $1500 total a year on transportation, never mind $1500 a year more than what you're already spending, seems like an exorbitant sum. I can get a monthly Metrocard for $76 and ride the subways as often as I want every single day for a total of $912 annually, and I feel even spending that much on transportation would be too much.

Considering that transportation to distant and remote areas are a vital part of my business, it's worth it. Quite a large percantage of the world isn't subway-accessible

It frequently amazes me the huge sums people spend on cars, which incidentally sit parked for probably 22 hours or more a day on average (i.e. terrible utilization of a valuable capital asset), without batting an eyelid.

Combining point #1 with universal truth #1 (people are stupid). The neighborhood I live in has a household income of about $40-60k/year. Why, then, are there $50k+ SUVs that get single-digit fuel efficiency? The only conclusion I can come to is that gas doesn't cost enough. Of course, a gas-guzzler tax that kicked in at 20mpg would do nicely, but it's easier to let a pipeline get bombed (hello secret service)*.

Everytime I analyze the economics of owning a car I come to the same conclusion. It's just not worth it with cars costing $25000 unless they are used at least 20,000 miles a year, and don't require additional money for fuel, insurance, or repairs. Oh, and also last about 500,000 miles as well. Total cost per mile then would be about $0.05, or about the same as riding the subway 20,000 miles a year with monthly Metrocards would cost you.

The fact that I have a car and can get anywhere increases my value to my clients many times the cost of a car.


*After speaking with a friend who works for the SS, I'd imagine my comments above would call for a quick proof-reading. Just wanted to say hi.

 

[ddrueding]

...which incidentally sit parked for probably 22 hours or more a day on average (i.e. terrible utilization of a valuable capital asset)...

Mine actually sits still for about 18 hours a day, but most of it in different places that I got to using my car. Terrible utilization? Let's not talk about my HTPC or laptop.

 

[LunarMist]

Everytime I analyze the economics of owning a car I come to the same conclusion. It's just not worth it with cars costing $25000 unless they are used at least 20,000 miles a year, and don't require additional money for fuel, insurance, or repairs.

Perhaps that makes sense for some people, but the vast majority of people in the US don't commute in the bowels of the earth, nor have a good reason to do so. Public transportation in most cities is too inefficient and time-consuming to be a viable alternative for those with decent incomes. A car driven less than 10,000 miles per year can last ten yaers and be fairly economical.

You probably would not like my photo equipment. A couple of 1Ds MK IIs, a 500/4 IS, a 300/2.8 IS, etc., and a bunch of other lenses and bodies sit idle for 11 months of the year.

 

[CougTek]

To expect a down market G6 or Malibu to have all the same design features of a relatively low volume Saab 93 which sells for a much higher price is completely idiotic & economically infeasible. With that said, the G6/Malibu platform is excellent & I would probably own one today if I were in the market for a vehicle (& did not already have a Sigma platform sitting in my garage). They are excellent values.

I don't expect a Malibu or G6 to have all the same features as the 93, but if GM wants me to buy one, they better match at least a Sonata or a Accord, which they don't. I don't consider a car with a four-speed automatic transmission and a 200HP V6 engine to be a good value when the competition offers five-speed automatic transmission and +220HP from a smaller engine. You've made the chassis right, now try to catch up elsewhere. You can't honestly say that your 3.5L V6 fares well when compared to any other V6 from the competition.

 

[LOST6200]

I dunno why males are so hung up on all the tarnsnmissjon and engines technicakuitiesd. Geez, it is a not a race cvar.

 

[jtr1962]

Perhaps that makes sense for some people, but the vast majority of people in the US don't commute in the bowels of the earth, nor have a good reason to do so. Public transportation in most cities is too inefficient and time-consuming to be a viable alternative for those with decent incomes. A car driven less than 10,000 miles per year can last ten yaers and be fairly economical.

Blame GM et al for that. The US had a much better public transit system before GM bought up trolley lines for the express purpose of replacing them with buses (and eventually nothing). Also, the suburbanization of America at the same time didn't help either. It's a lot easier to build viable public transportation when people aren't spread out.

You probably would not like my photo equipment. A couple of 1Ds MK IIs, a 500/4 IS, a 300/2.8 IS, etc., and a bunch of other lenses and bodies sit idle for 11 months of the year.

Difference is it doesn't cost you money when your equipment sits idle. A occasionally used car still requires relatively huge insurance payments, and still depreciates.

 

[LunarMist]

Difference is it doesn't cost you money when your equipment sits idle. A occasionally used car still requires relatively huge insurance payments, and still depreciates.

Apparently you are not familiar with digital photo gear. Between my first body, a 1Ds, 1D MII, and 2x1Ds MKIIs depreciation has been about 50% every 2 years. Lenses depreciate less. The total loss of value is $7-8K per year. Insurance is not as expensive as that for a car, but not cheap for a consumer.

 

[timwhit]

There are several US cities where there are real public transit systems in place, that people actually use. I know the CTA doesn't really compare to the MTA, but it still provided 492,405,118 rides in 2005.

I'm glad that I accounted for several of them.

 

[jtr1962]

Considering that transportation to distant and remote areas are a vital part of my business, it's worth it. Quite a large percantage of the world isn't subway-accessible

OK, you have a business requiring car travel and that may well make the car pay for itself. The vast majority of people don't, and make a choice to live somewhere not subway-accessible.

Combining point #1 with universal truth #1 (people are stupid). The neighborhood I live in has a household income of about $40-60k/year. Why, then, are there $50k+ SUVs that get single-digit fuel efficiency? The only conclusion I can come to is that gas doesn't cost enough. Of course, a gas-guzzler tax that kicked in at 20mpg would do nicely, but it's easier to let a pipeline get bombed (hello secret service)*.

I agree gas doesn't cost enough but I don't base that conclusion on the fact that people spend a ridiculous portion of their incomes on their cars. Rather, I base it on the fact that burning gas causes all sorts of problems which cost society so the end user should pay more to burn the gas.

As for why people spend so much on cars, yes, they are stupid. They don't buy vehicles which reflect what they need on a daily basis but rather buy what misleading advertising leads them to believe they need. To buy groceries and commute to work a little EV would be fine for most people. They don't need a big SUV which can drive up the side of a glacier or tow 18,000 pounds or get to 60 in 8 seconds. Think of it this way-do these people also need to own a moving truck in case they move? No, rather they rent one if/when they need it. So why own a vehicle with capabilities you'll seldom if ever use? Rather, for those rare times you need to move more load, or the range of your vehicle is insufficient, just rent an appropriate vehicle. And if you only drive once a week or less, maybe its a better idea to just rent a car when you need it instead of owning one. Problem is the car has a status second only to the family dog so people are completely illogical when it comes to them. Do I own a subway train for the 20 or 30 times a year a might use one?

My point isn't that nobody should own a car but rather why don't enough people demand cars suited to what they really need them for instead of letting themselves be mislead by advertising? For the vast majority a little $5000 EV would be fine. It could get them to work, buy groceries, pick up the kids at soccer practice, even be suited to 150 mile trips. You'll be paying very little per mile for "fuel" compared to a gas car. You'll also be paying practically nothing on maintenance. Such a vehicle could approach a total cost of ownership approaching the $0.05 a mile I mentioned earlier, especially if auto users demanded an end to mandatory auto insurance (another collossal expense). In short, it annoys me that if I were ever in the market for a vehicle I can't get the type of vehicle best suited to my needs, but rather need to pay extra for a lot of features I don't want or need (extra size, range, power, radio/CD players, AC, heat, air bags, etc), and would be forced to pay something like $3K a year for insurance (again don't need it since I would never cause an accident). No quicker road to tyranny than forcing someone to pay for something you think they should have.

BTW, you'll get your $150 per barrel crude soon enough with increased demand from China and India. Additionally, the Iran situation has all the makings of causing a permanent reduction in our ability to buy Middle Eastern oil, driving up the price yet more. My guess is in ten years we see GM, Ford, and Chrysler close their doors for good with the influx of cheap Chinese EVs. This will be exactly what people will be demanding as oil edges ever higher, yet GM et al will have bet the farm on SUVs and high-performance sedans, all powered by ICEs of course. It might be time to start short-selling US automaker stock soon.

 

[jtr1962]

Apparently you are not familiar with digital photo gear. Between my first body, a 1Ds, 1D MII, and 2x1Ds MKIIs depreciation has been about 50% every 2 years. Lenses depreciate less. The total loss of value is $7-8K per year. Insurance is not as expensive as that for a car, but not cheap for a consumer.

OK, but this is a hobby from which you derive a lot of enjoyment. I spend money I'll never get back on my hobbies as well. I can say most people who spend similar sums each year on cars aren't driving enthusiasts. Rather, they do so because they have little choice since real low-cost cars just aren't available.

BTW, how much equipment do you use that you spend that kind of money, and is the newer stuff really that much better that you need to continually buy each year? You can buy a decent SLR digital camera with something like 8 to 10 megapixels now for well under $1000, and it could theoretically last forever. Is what you buy really that much better than the higher end offerings I see advertised every week? That seems like an awful lot of money to me. Not chastising you or anything but I'm admittedly ignorant on the subject so I can't fathom digital photography costing so much.

 

[jtr1962]

There are several US cities where there are real public transit systems in place, that people actually use. I know the CTA doesn't really compare to the MTA, but it still provided 492,405,118 rides in 2005.

I'm glad that I accounted for several of them.

I think St. Louis also has a fairly decent system, and in Canada Montreal and Toronto both have nice systems. Admittedly, none compare to the MTA where you are literally within walking distance of a bus or subway nearly everywhere, they run 24 hours a day, and during most hours they come every ten minutes or less. However, those systems still serve the needs of a lot of people. 492 million rides is certainly nothing to sneeze at even if it doesn't approach the 1.4 billion in NYC. Then again, Chicago only has 2.8 million people, so the annual per capita ridership is about the same as here.

 

[timwhit]

I've been on the St. Louis Metro once. I think most people there just drive to work/school/etc.

I own a car, but I really only use it when I am leaving the city, everywhere that I travel in the city is either done by walking or on public transportation.

I was looking for a list of public transportation systems by number of rides. But, couldn't find anything to my liking. All I know at this point is that NYC MTA provides the most rides and Chicago CTA provides the second most. Anyone have a more detailed list?

 

[time]

I don't consider a car with a four-speed automatic transmission and a 200HP V6 engine to be a good value when the competition offers five-speed automatic transmission and +220HP from a smaller engine.

Why not? The ratio of power output to engine displacement is interesting for engineers but irrelevant to users. You can raise HP/L by bolting on a turbocharger but that does not make it superior to a larger engine. More to the point, increasing HP/L does not improve fuel economy and may in fact make it worse.

A four-speed auto gear box is fine for most applications. An extra gear becomes more desirable when the engine is very highly tuned to increase HP/L.

Rather than push for closer gear ratios, perhaps you should ask why CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission) gearboxes haven't taken over by now. They allow the engine to be tuned for low fuel consumption while still supporting high power output and are simpler to boot.

BTW, 220hp is a ludicrous amount of power for most applications. It's partly to support the increasing weight of vehicles. The way to save significant amounts of energy is to make vehicles lighter, not heavier!

 

[mubs]

OK, but this is a hobby from which you derive a lot of enjoyment.

I suspect LM is a pro, not a hobbyist. He seems to spend all his time with photo gear and then managing the picures he takes (why do you think he's here at SF?!).

There's a boy in my my daughter's 4th grade class whose mom picks him up everyday in a Land Rover. Never understood the rationale. The school is not on top of a cliff accessible only by off-road vehicles.

Time, I think one reason cars are heavier is because they are safer. AFAIK, at this time, the combination of safety, low weight and low cost is not attainable at present.

 

[jtr1962]

I was looking for a list of public transportation systems by number of rides. But, couldn't find anything to my liking. All I know at this point is that NYC MTA provides the most rides and Chicago CTA provides the second most. Anyone have a more detailed list?

I found a list of per capita boardings for US cities. Not exactly what you're looking for, but you can figure ridership if you know the population of each city. I also found a nice list of 155 systems from around the world. The site the list is on is very interesting. No ridership information, though.

 

[timwhit]

That is metropolitan areas. It really isn't what I am looking for. I don't care about the people that live in suburbs because for the most part these people do not take public transportation, unless it is a commuter train to work (which I doubt is taken into account in that graph). Plus, this skews the data as the city of Chicago is ~2.9 million while the suburbs make up another 6.5 million people, who mostly drive everywhere.

 

[jtr1962]

Here is a list by mass transit agency for the last quarter of 2004. Look in the column marked "Trips Thru Dec '04" for 2004 totals. Yes, the list is very long and complex, but at least it does separate urban and suburban transit. For example, in NYC there are separate statistics for the MTA, LIRR, and MetroNorth.

Another list, but this is totals for metropolitan areas. At least it lists total ridership instead of per capita ridership.

 

[timwhit]

I had found both of those earlier, but thanks for linking to them.

These raw numbers seem like they are pretty difficult to compare between cities. Especially when one city might include mostly commuter trains (LA), while another one is mostly subway (NY).

What do you think?

 

[Mercutio]

A whole web site of pointless statistics, perfect for arguing your point on the internet!

Posted here 'cause it looks useful to this thread.