Motortrend article: 100 MPG+ Chevy Volt, GM's "Moon Shot"

On 7 Feb 2009 17:02:51 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:



>
> Mercedes will sell me a stripped down C-class for $26k. It's a fun car
> to drive. Why can't GM sell me something like that for that price?


Ummmmmm... not their market? But, this has wandered from the original
point.


--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow > wrote:
>On 7 Feb 2009 17:02:51 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
>wisdom...:
>
>> Mercedes will sell me a stripped down C-class for $26k. It's a fun car
>> to drive. Why can't GM sell me something like that for that price?
>
>Ummmmmm... not their market? But, this has wandered from the original
>point.

The original point that I was making is that to be successful, a large
car manufacturer has to have their hands in _all_ markets, not just one.
And that if they spend all of their efforts making a few profitable models,
disaster will result if there is even a small change in the marketplace,
as GM is currently discovering.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 8 Feb 2009 09:47:45 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
wisdom...:

> Mike Marlow > wrote:
>>On 7 Feb 2009 17:02:51 -0500, Scott Dorsey cast forth these pearls of
>>wisdom...:
>>
>>> Mercedes will sell me a stripped down C-class for $26k. It's a fun car
>>> to drive. Why can't GM sell me something like that for that price?
>>
>>Ummmmmm... not their market? But, this has wandered from the original
>>point.
>
> The original point that I was making is that to be successful, a large
> car manufacturer has to have their hands in _all_ markets, not just one.
> And that if they spend all of their efforts making a few profitable models,
> disaster will result if there is even a small change in the marketplace,
> as GM is currently discovering.
> --scott

I know your point Scott, but I disagree that they've got to be in
everything. Most markets, maybe, but not all. GM did a pretty good job of
covering most markets over the years, but they alienated so damned many of
their customers that it finally caught up with them.

--

-Mike-

Is that why Toyota had a loss in 2008, as well?

"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
...

> I know your point Scott, but I disagree that they've got to be in
> everything. Most markets, maybe, but not all. GM did a pretty good job
> of
> covering most markets over the years, but they alienated so damned many of
> their customers that it finally caught up with them.
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
>

Mike Hunter > wrote:
>Is that why Toyota had a loss in 2008, as well?

Everybody had a loss in 2008. GM actually did a little bit better than
most if you ignore the massive losses that GMAC incurred. The problem with
GM is that they've been having progressive issues going back to the 1970s
that they don't deal with, so when we get to a point in time when everyone
is having trouble, they aren't as easily able to deal with it as some of
their competitors.

Admittedly, Chrysler screwed themselves by taking over Benz, another ill
conceived merger that did nothing but harm to both parties involved. So
stuff like that makes GM look a little better in comparison.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Nate Nagel wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> The answer is sitting in my driveway.
>>>
>>> How many Fieros are still in daily use?
>>>
>>> nate
>>
>> The ones that didn't burn up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously, I'd guess that the % of Fieros still on the road is not as
>> high as old Vettes, but a lot higher than most 24 year old cars. When
>> was the last time you saw a car from the mid 80's on the road? Not
>> many left as daily drivers. Fieros are reaching the point where
>> they're somewhat of a collector car and parts are kind of hard to get,
>> so they're more Sunday driver types.
>>
>> Ray
>
> heh, the funny thing is that Porsche has a nasty habit of building cars
> that do the same thing. Both the 914 and the 944 had fuel lines that
> tended to split at a most inopportune time and spraying fuel + hot
> exhaust = badness. Maybe GM was trying to copy some of Porsche's
> engineering features?
>
> Like I said, I still have a 944 as my primary vehicle, although I also
> have the Impala for a company car so it only gets driven a couple times
> a week now. I can't remember the last time I saw *any* Fiero, although
> I do see a couple other 944s running around. 911s, of course, have a
> high survival rate being a more expensive and theoretically collectible
> vehicle.
>
> The other point is that the 944 is a *real* sports car, even though
> Porsche snobs look down at it and it has a back seat. It's common to
> see 944s at autocrosses and road races to this day. I don't know that
> Fieros were ever popular... I kind of look at them more like a Honda
> Del Sol, a bit of a novelty, but not a real raceable machine.
>
> I originally brought up the 944 because it fit the market niche back in
> the 80s that is currently filled by the Boxster. In fact, the
> 924/944/968 was produced right up until the Boxster's intro... you
> could go so far as to say that the 914 also filled the same niche,
> meaning that Porsche has only redesigned twice since 1969. Not too
> shabby really, although the 914 was pretty much a failure as well, being
> completely outclassed by the contemporary 240Z.
>
> nate
>

I see more Fieros than 924/944's myself. (maybe because I owned one...)

The Fiero fire problem wasn't fuel system problem, it was... well, read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac...ire_reputation
for a better explanation.

The one thing the wikipedia article doesn't mention that probably also
doesn't help with the Fiero fire thing is that plastic body panels +
fire = mucho more fire than a regular steel bodied car.

Ray

On 2/8/09 9:59 PM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
> wrote:

> Mike Hunter > wrote:
>> Is that why Toyota had a loss in 2008, as well?
>
> Everybody had a loss in 2008. GM actually did a little bit better than
> most if you ignore the massive losses that GMAC incurred. The problem with
> GM is that they've been having progressive issues going back to the 1970s
> that they don't deal with, so when we get to a point in time when everyone
> is having trouble, they aren't as easily able to deal with it as some of
> their competitors.
>
> Admittedly, Chrysler screwed themselves by taking over Benz, another ill
> conceived merger that did nothing but harm to both parties involved. So
> stuff like that makes GM look a little better in comparison.

I think you got that backwards. Benz took over Chrysler, used them to
improve their own quality and then dumped them. Capitalism in action.

> --scott