GM CEO: C11 "Probable"

Well, I appreciate the "value for money" American cars provide (ps: i am not from the US), however, there is a problem you can't ignore. During the last 20 years, Detroit has being reducing quality in it's small and mid size sector after reduced quality which was result of even more reduced quality. Just compare a GM car from the 70's to a car from 2006 of the same brand (2006 was probably the worst era for GM when it comes from quality). It wasn't the banks that stopped lending people money. GM has been losing money since 2003, when the economy was booming. For god's sake, GM was doing piss poor in year 2007, when Hummers where selling like hotcakes! The reason: The perceived quality of a car is very different for people buying big cars than people buying small and mid sized, crazy as it sounds. -People who buy small and midsize are expecting decent quality in all parts, because they need the car for work. Providing that kind of thing was probably too hard for Wanoger, GM's horrible supplies and lazy workers. So they quit. Just ask any American what small car he/she would buy, and he/she will say Toyota or Honda. Simple as that. -People who buy big cars, SUVs or muscle cars usually don't care about all the parts. Just give them the big V8 or the tall ride height and they are happy with it. They don't care if the air condition isn't working (300C), the suspension sucks (Trailblazer), or the plastics are cheap (Corvette). They are happy just with the size and speed, because they are petrolheads (and well they do) -> WELL, this is what the problem is! A company cannot survive by selling vehicles only to petrolheads! No matter how many Hummers, Corvettes and Camaros you sell, you want make it if the crucial midsize and small car division of yours is doing absurdly. Period. So, unless these lazy guys at GM Chrysler and Ford fix these much crucial divisions, they are not going to make it even after a 6 trillion dollars bailout. The problem is, GM CANNOT fix this division buy itself. Just look at them... They are spending a gazillion of dollars in a technology showcase car like the Volt, while their small and midsize sector is suffering, and they are doing nothing to fix it. Do they think it's boring or not so important or what? (ps: the malibu is too little too late) -->So, THE ONLY SOLLUTION to save GM is not to play with economic witchcraft (like bonds and bankruptcy fillings), but for the government to take over the two companies. Then, it should: 1)Remove all current cars from the production lines (but keep the production lines) 2)Design new cars with quality in mind and put these cars in the production lines instead 3)Find some new suppliers that don't make garbage or even better make everything in house 4)Fire the lazy people that don't know how to glue a dash together. Fiddling with bankruptcy fillings and making plans on how to get smaller but not better will only make you die in shame.

@kurkosdr, I agree with your comments but disagree with your solution. 1. The current designes are not "bad" (I of course don't like them but I am not the target audience). What they need to do is to isolate the problem areas AND FIX THEM. If that means demanding better parts, so be it. GM can not afford to repair/replace poor products from it's suppliers. It can't afford the "bad press". It must produce better quality even if it must raise costs (or lower exec saleries) to do so. 2. Planned obsolesence is a fact of life, however I think Sloan's idea was to make customers WANT the new model, not NEED it. You want people to buy GM becasue they make the best cars. You use your advantage in technology to produce something NEW to entice customers to upgrade or purchase new. Those that can't do so, you want to have upgrade to one of your products used. "I may only be able to buy a used Corvette now, but someday I'll own a NEW ONE!" 3. Concur, however GM's suppliers have been scrimped and cheated to the point they can barely stay in buisness. GM will have to pay it's suppliers more if it expects quality products. That raises the cost of cars or reduces profit margins. 4. Concur...but good luck with that one.

By the way, I get flak from my father all the time, because he's a GM retiree (over 35 years at the Tech Center) and I'm a Honda lover. I've had bad luck with GM products and good luck with Hondas, so I'm brand loyal. And Howie Long is right, Honda makes a fantastic lawnmower too!

@mikeydee: I love the accord, hate the design of the Civics. One time, they are so boring that you want to kill youself once inside. The next year, they are all too ricey. Can't these guys get the design right, like they did in the accord? So, it's honda for me when it comes to big cars, and italians for small (can't ignore the alfa mito). PS: When I meant throw the old designs, I never meant the comsetic or the nameplates. This is all GM's got!! I meant an overhaul in the whole engineering department, from engine to interior