Escaping from the routine of normal Wednesday publishing (3 To Beat), The Good Car Guy thought that, with plenty of Questions from The Good Car Nation, that it was time to respond. However, a problem presented itself. One of these questions demands priority placement and an urgent response. Hopefully, more reader Questions will be dealt with later in the normal format.-----
Why Are General Motors Cars So Bad? Let's start by forgiving mainstream media viewers for being led into the belief system that portrays the Detroit Three as a builder of "bad cars". For one thing, this is GOODCARBADCAR.net, and the goal of this website is to showcase what is good and what is bad. For the record, over the course of releasing The Bad 8, The Bad 8 v2.0, and The Bad 8 Supersize, on only six occasions has General Motors appeared. As for The Good 12, The Good 12 v2.0, and The Good 12 Supersize, General Motors has made five appearances. Far more prestigous companies fare little better and sometimes worse.
In other words, don't paint all General Motors vehicles with the same brush. Just because General Motors is the maker of the Hummer H2 SUT doesn't mean the Buick Enclave is a bad car.
Onwards to point deux. Apart from GM's ability to make both good cars and bad cars (in reference to their GoodCarBadCar.net victories and losses which centres mainly on desirability and sellability), GM vehicles are also known to be reliable.... by times. As mass-production facilities, certain General Motors manufacturing plants are at the top of the heap.
Point tres declares that over the last two years, almost every newly introduced vehicle in General Motors portfolio is class-competitive or better. The Buick Enclave was already mentioned, but how 'bout the Chevrolet Malibu and Corvette ZR1, Cadillac CTS and CTS-V, the Lambda platform which holds the Enclave's mates from Chevrolet; Saturn; and GMC, the Pontiac Vibe and G8 and various Holdens and Opels? Critics can point to clearly malnourished product lines like the Chevrolet Aveo or over-priced lines like the Saturn Astra, but then the protagonist stands on top of plenty of top-notch trucks and SUVs.
(Pictured from top to bottom are the Chevrolet Malibu LTZ,
2010 Chevy Equinox interior, and the uncovered Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid)
What's all this mean? There's no need for anybody to suggest that General Motors' current problems relate to current vehicles that are currently bad. Improvements could be made. Start with perceived quality, a complaint made by The Good Car Guy in referencing the Cadillac CTS. Though it is expensive to make very small cars very good, General Motors needs to do it anyway. But in terms of "product".... nah, the current group of cars isn't the problem.
The cars that came before were often bad. And if they weren't, it was the cars before those cars. Indeed, the Chevrolet Cobalt is no Civic/Corolla beater, but it's ten times better than the Chevrolet Cavalier. Yet, the Cobalt is still tainted by the memory of what ought to be called a bad car. The Pontiac G8 is terrific stuff but poorly timed. Pushing the theory that the Cadillac CTS-V is an amazing car is acceptable here, but that's not anywhere near the core of the market.
The implication, then, isn't that General Motors cars are fine and that's the end of the story. Not at all. GM cars are competitive.... and that fact is terribly irrelevant right now. The stickers you see on new GM cars at dealerships ($8,000 off Cobalts, $17,000 off an Avalanche) make very clear that with traditionally accepted automotive mark-ups of under 10%, these vehicles are sold at a loss. Does that make them bad cars? Of course not. Perhaps the question should have been, Why were the business practices of General Motors so bad? And for that, talk to AutoLine Detroit.
More Posts Like This
No comments:
Post a Comment