Why GM went bankrupt

Topic: Why GM went bankrupt (Read 4960 times) previous topic - next topic

Why GM went bankrupt

September 23, 2012, 04:01:06 PM

We had a vehicle traded in at work last week, and as I'm looking at it, it became clear why GM went bankrupt (actually, it was clear long ago, but this moment just reminded me). As any mechanic can tell you, the quality record of the van shown in the pic (GM U-van) is horrible. I'm not talking about the quality here, though, I'm talking about the looks. These are basically Venture/Montana vans that nobody was buying, so GM grafted an SUV-style front end onto them in an effort to trick people into buying them (people were buying SUV's, after all, not minivans).

The results were horrible. Just look at the proportions of the front end of this thing. It looks like it had an allergic reaction to a giant bee sting. The front wheel looks like it's about 6" too close to the door. And if you'd even been under the hood of one (I pity you), you can see that GM obviously made zero changes to the structure of the thing. They simply bolted a molded plastic support onto the old Venture van and bolted that really ugly nose job onto it.

GM should have had to, as part of their bankruptcy, send every single purchaser of these things a letter of deepest apology. I mean the Aztek was ugly, yeah, but at least it was ugly to be different. These things were ugly in a weak attempt at conforming. Shame, GM, shame...

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #1 – September 23, 2012, 04:31:57 PM

I've seen 'em around, and I too have noticed the proportioning (or glaring lack thereof) in these POS's.

I daresay the mechanicals aren't changed? Nothing like having to reach over 3 feet of plastic to do simple engine maintenance.

If ever there was a fitting example of "10 pounds of shiznit in a 5 pound bag" that pictured above would be it.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #2 – September 23, 2012, 09:25:33 PM

Not because of the cars and trucks they build. The finance end went bankrupt. The car side does very well. The Government made GM make loans that were not solvent and that destroyed our economy a couple years back. GM builds dam good cars. Their is an old saying!!!! GOD TOUCHED THE LS MOTORS!!!

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #3 – September 23, 2012, 10:15:13 PM

Tom, all due respect...the government didn't have jack shiznit to do with gm's bankruptcy....for that matter, they're near bankrupt again AFTER a loan or 2.

And there's plenty of unaltered video footage of '12 Stangs smoking NEW LSshaging whatever engines.

Go troll your GM shiznit on some chevy board, if there's any left that you've not been kicked off of. I'm for one sick of seeing or hearing chevy this, LS that in every other thread you've posted in...especially one that has nothing to do with the ed engine in the first place.

Besides, maybe the glaring similarities between the LS engines and the Ford's windsor from years ago make your blood boil, no? Word has it GM had a little Yates help on some cylinder head design...seems ole Robert borrowed a page from Ford...

And if that isn't enough, why did GM change their firing order to be the same as Ford?

Now, just how does that make you feel?

Edit, I just figured out why the LS is called..the "LS".
It stand for Legally Stolen.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #4 – September 23, 2012, 10:54:07 PM

My boss just bought a Chevy version of this van as a beater. It is just awful. Not in reliability but in looks.

The post office bought a bunch of these Chevy vans to replace the old mail trucks. They still use them, at least around here. The funny thing is that besides my boss's van I've never seen one of these privately owned.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #5 – September 24, 2012, 04:28:18 AM

For myself, I've just never cared for GM's styling. It's just one of those subjective things that's hard to put a finger on.

My take on their troubles is simplistic--too much money going out and not enough coming in. There's an emotional aspect to cars, of course (which is why we're all here), but dollars and cents do count for a lot. I remember an article I once read about the model year Explorer I bought. It doesn't have "flash", but it has what counts--easy-on-the-eyes styling, well-thought-out ease of use, and no real deficiencies. It had the best brakes in its class, but otherwise it basically does what it's supposed to do very well without getting in your way, and without costing a fortune. "You'll have trouble finding it in a parking lot," it pointed out, but that's a testament to how it hit the sweet spot between all the issues involved. Simply put, it gives the customer what they want, at the right price point to be sustainable from a business perspective. Somewhere I think GM forgot that. They need to realize that they're competing for business against a whole host of companies, each of which is trying their own strategy at balancing costs vs. offering what best fits their customers' needs.

GM is far from alone in this. The 2002-2005 T-Bird is an example of a similar debacle. It's a neat car--my dad has an '05 in the driveway, but it was overpriced from the jump and was inherently limited to a tiny market. It was doomed from the start. Neat car, yes, but it doesn't do a company any good if it doesn't sell.

I know, the elephant in the room is the Volt. If I was on the board of directors I'd propose killing that white elephant tomorrow, but then again my philosophy is that a company's first duty is to survive, and I don't see the Volt doing that for them (how the heck are you supposed to use a plug-in when you park in the street???). I guess the designers don't have teenage punks with nasty streaks in their neighborhoods).

GM has astronomical costs. Their first and last rule must be, "It has to sell". Otherwise any discussion of a product offering is just academic. If they built the Volt in Mexico (or heck, if they built it in Huntsville) then such an expensive experiment might make a tiny bit more sense (bh virtue of making the experiment less expensive). The way they did it, though, makes no sense to me.

When Airbus announced the double-decker A380, my first reaction was to turn to my dad and ask, "are they out of their minds?" The plane is "cool", big, and a leap in size, and there is no market in the world that can keep such an aircraft consistently filled to justify buying them. Like GM, they forgot the golden rule of business: "is there a market for this?" In other words, "will it sell enough to justify it?"

For the Blazer, and the Cavalier, the answer was "yes". For many other vehicles, it isn't. If they're going to insist on operating in a high-cost environment like Michigan, then they must concentrate on creating saleable products even more to compensate for it.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #6 – September 24, 2012, 05:53:19 AM

Go troll your GM shiznit on some chevy board, if there's any left that you've not been kicked off of. I'm for one sick of seeing or hearing chevy this, LS that in every other thread you've posted in...especially one that has nothing to do with the ed engine in the first place.

Just curious what GM forum was i thrown off ????

If you take the 351 and late-5.0L Ford firing order and renumber the cylinders like a Chevy, the firing order is 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3. That's the same as the Chevy Gen III and IV (LS-series) V-8s.

GM LS V8 engines and Ford Modular V8s have an identical firing pattern despite having a different firing order.

Wow a little humor and you go BONKERS!!! Calm down and look at the SNAKE !!! And POUNDER. They are my CHEVY EATERS

So as i am bowing out of here i just wanted to let you look at !!!

POUNDER & THE SNAKE !!!

I hope i helped out with problems even though i am basically a CHEVY GUY. Thanks !!!

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #7 – September 24, 2012, 06:30:56 AM

This is my BRAIN!!!

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #8 – September 24, 2012, 11:12:59 AM

i just love reading about gm's on a fox tbird cougar forum. ls this ls that. ugh. I understand why they went bankrupt, to much of the for every chevy, we need a buick, pontiac, saturn equivalent.

the op's starting the thread doesnt make me mad. its the every thread needs to be, for lack of a better expression. ls nuthugging fest.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #9 – September 24, 2012, 04:28:43 PM

I don't remember blaming GM's bankruptcy on the Camaro or LSx engine. I don't think I even mentioned one of those. I rather think I pointed out the U-van. This thread was meant to be a humorous poke at a (really) ugly duckling. The proportions of that van just struck me as really odd, so I took a picture. Reliability-wise Ford did no better *cough*windstar*cough*, but at least Ford had the sense to give up on minivans instead of trying to pass them off as SUV's. The Taurus-X/Freestyle, though...

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #10 – September 24, 2012, 04:43:44 PM

oh, thunder chicken. i totally understand your point. i think anyone who works on them, or has in the past knows that. it just sucks that every thread turns into a ls whatever debate. what i never did realize were that the uglys that chevy put out were all on that platform.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #11 – September 24, 2012, 06:26:43 PM

Quote from: Thunder Chicken;399103

...but at least Ford had the sense to give up on minivans instead of trying to pass them off as SUV's.

Have you not had a look at the new Explorer? It is another unit body monstrosity and is really nothing more than a minivan with a snout.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #12 – September 24, 2012, 10:39:07 PM

Compare the towing capacity of the new Explorer vs. the chevy van pictured..or any other fwd gm van, for that matter.

I can appreciate someone's fondness for different makes of cars/trucks/beer, whatever....
On the other hand, I don't go to Camaro boards and brag about what 5.0 I've touched today. Just gets old, ya know..?

I'm not as old, experienced, or built as many as a lot of you older folks...but I have been around long enough to know that if they have tires, they're gonna cause trouble, sooner or later, regardless of what the badge on the trunk says.

Quote

The cylinder firing order was changed to 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3, so that the LS series now corresponds to the firing pattern of other modern V8 engines (for example the Ford Modular V8).

And Tom, firing order = firing pattern. LS is the same as modular Ford V8s in that regard.

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #13 – September 24, 2012, 10:54:02 PM

Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;399133

if they have tires, they're gonna cause trouble, sooner or later,

You forgot to add, AND :ies:

LOL

Why GM went bankrupt

Reply #14 – September 25, 2012, 12:39:24 AM

Quote from: ThunderbirdSport302;399133

Compare the towing capacity of the new Explorer vs. the chevy van pictured..or any other fwd gm van, for that matter.

I can appreciate someone's fondness for different makes of cars/trucks/beer, whatever....
On the other hand, I don't go to Camaro boards and brag about what 5.0 I've touched today. Just gets old, ya know..?

I'm not as old, experienced, or built as many as a lot of you older folks...but I have been around long enough to know that if they have tires, they're gonna cause trouble, sooner or later, regardless of what the badge on the trunk says.

And Tom, firing order = firing pattern. LS is the same as modular Ford V8s in that regard.

Chevy made "our ford 302", roll back the clock and look at the original RPM gettin chevy302.