Well, if anybody thought that the management incompetence that many associate with General Motors may have dissipated with the restructuring of 2009, there's no need to worry.  It is still as strong as ever:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/autos/gm_no_chevy/

Seems that the highly-paid marketing wanks at GM were worried that car buyers worldwide were getting all confused about what "Chevy" is.  So they sent out an internal memo which essentially banned the use of the word Chevy in any advertisements, documents, or even conversations.

Heck, I am not even a Chevy kinda guy and I think that this is about as stupid a policy as one could develop.

Apparently there is now some backtracking, as GM was flooded with complaints about the new policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/11/automobiles/11CHEVY.html

Just remember my fellow American citizens... Mr. O'bama bought this company with our tax dollars.  Enjoy.

I think you mean highly paid marketing wonks, not wanks...or maybe not.
8)

And what, are you surprised?

Just because they got bailed out doesn't mean that they'd clear out their heads too.

Overall, I do think the general is doing better than before, but not a lot better.

Keep in new no "Chevy" edict comes from the same GM division that named one of their most popular mid-sized cars to Latino markets "Nova". Which means No Go in Spanish, great name for a car eh?

Hey, people bought them anyway... ::)

It seems that every 10-20 years, GM will develop a radical new vehicle with technology and design features that are at least 3-5 years more advanced then their competition, only to rush it into production well before all the bugs are worked out, inevitably resulting in the car being a spectacular failure in its first few years of production. They will then work feverishly to fix all the bugs and finally get it right about 5 years into the design cycle, but by then the vehicle in question will have a reputation for being such a piece of crap that no one wants to buy them. GM has some of the most innovative and brilliant engineers in the world who unfortunately are hamstrung by some of the biggest nimrods on the planet who actually make the final decisions.

When GM gets things right, such as the Chevy small-block V-8  ;), the 3800 V-6, the Turbo-Hydramatic transmission, etc,they are truly world class. But when they get things wrong, like the Corvair, the Vega, the 1980 X-Cars, the Fiero, the late 70's diesel V-8s, the Cadillac V-8-6-4, I can go on and on, they seem almost as brain-dead as the guys who designed the Trabant.

And right now GM is getting ready to release perhaps the most radical and technologically advanced vehicle ever made, the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid.  And they've basically been making up the technology as they go along. If they get the Volt right and it is a safe and reliable vehicle right from the get-go, it will surely be a smashing success.

But given GM's track record I'm a little concerned that they'll find a way to f*ck it up.  :o :o :o

But given GM's track record I'm a little concerned that they'll find a way to f*ck it up.  :o :o :o


That's what really has frustrated me about GM for over 30 years.  GM recruits the "best and the brightest" from colleges, and they indeed have developed some fine technologies.

But they slowly turn these "best and brightest" into cost-indifferent bureaucrats and usually create cars that COULD have been excellent but end up bland, and more expensive than they needed to be.

I have had opportunities throughout the years to deal with GM, supplying them products and services, and it has never ceased to amaze me that when faced with a choice between (a) cost efficiency and service or (b) sticking to old-fashioned GM bureaucracy, they will almost always cling to (b).  The marketplace is chock full of Davids that slay the GM Goliath every day.

That's what really has frustrated me about GM for over 30 years.  GM recruits the "best and the brightest" from colleges, and they indeed have developed some fine technologies.

But they slowly turn these "best and brightest" into cost-indifferent bureaucrats and usually create cars that COULD have been excellent but end up bland, and more expensive than they needed to be.

I have had opportunities throughout the years to deal with GM, supplying them products and services, and it has never ceased to amaze me that when faced with a choice between (a) cost efficiency and service or (b) sticking to old-fashioned GM bureaucracy, they will almost always cling to (b).  The marketplace is chock full of Davids that slay the GM Goliath every day.


We didn't pay any attention to GM.  My family thought their cars were junk and he'd always buy foreign cars.  My msternal grandpa drove a Pouget, and upscale French piece of sh*t.  One year, my dad bought a Fiat.  Great idea.  Drive a car built for southern Italy in northern New England!  For eight years my mom had an orange Volkswagen squareback.  Rear-engined cars were just great in the snow, kept spinning out and lurching all over the place.  Plus you froze in the winter because the goddam heater was defective and you'd boil in the summer 'cause you couldn't turn the f**kin' thing off.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif

Anyway, in 1988 Michael Moore made a move called "Roger & Me," which taught me how GM used to be run, how the unions once had a voice, and absent that voice, how they were closing plants in Michigan and moving them to Mexico, etc. etc. 

Oh, then you have to have NAFTA so nothing's subject to tariff....
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vogel.gif

Anyway, it wasn't until Michael Moore's "Roger & Me" that I started to understand the rustbelt. 

I read this when it came out.  I remember just loving it, and knowing DeLorean would pay for this sometime, somewhere.

http://www.serenska.com/IdealGarage/assets/images/books/OnAClearDayLarge.jpg

I read this when it came out.  I remember just loving it, and knowing DeLorean would pay for this sometime, somewhere.


John may have paid for it, but DeLorean is still in business.  Although the forms for the stainless exterior parts were destroyed, there were enough spare parts made to keep the secondary market alive and well for 30 years.

You can buy a better car for $15-20K used and $60K hand-rebuilt from scratch (!)... but you'd be hard-pressed to find a cooler car.  Drop $20ishK on a car where someone else has already done the repairs/restoration, and enjoy the ride, knowing that if you had to, you could hand it off to a fellow collector 5 years down the road and get most of your money back.

I'll bet the price premium you'd pay for going with a used DeLorean would be less than $50/month over the alternative of buying a $15K genericapplicancemobile and getting $2K trade-in value when you buy the next one.  If you kept the Time Machine for as little as 10 years, it'd certainly be cheaper than leasing three "new" genericapplicancemobiles.  And with laser-cutting, 3D printing, LEDs, electroluminescent wire and other DIY crafty goodies now widely-available, Hallowee'en would kick ass.  All of the parts for a BTTF Time Machine could be built by a DIYer for about $1000.  So sell 'em at $2K, and sell 15 of 'em, and you've just paid for the car!

Bring back the Edsel!

Bring back the Edsel!


Frighteningly affordable. 

Same price range as the DeLorean: $10-20K cash will get you one in pretty decent shape.

This is how Jay Leno got started, isn't it?

Frighteningly affordable. 

Same price range as the DeLorean: $10-20K cash will get you one in pretty decent shape.

The Edsel was a sh*tbox and that's all there is to it.  It wasn't notorious like the Corvair or the Pinto!



This is how Jay Leno got started, isn't it?


Very important.  Two words.  Leno sucks.
8)