Blaming the Messenger - GM/Ford & The Press
08-14-2006, 05:05 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Blaming the Messenger - GM/Ford & The Press
From CarConnection.com
Exerpts from the article...
=====
"... The <GM/Ford> leaders seem to be financial men who believe that costs are the number-one priority, not building the best vehicles. Certainly costs are important but the result has left GM years late, years late, in new engine and transmission developments, with the company still putting four-speed automatics in luxury cars (like the Cadillac DTS) when the competition is putting seven- and eight-speed transmissions in its luxury cars...
... And the men at the top of Detroit automakers never admit any errors or missteps. No matter how much market share is lost, no matter what the dollar losses, they never take responsibility...
What's sad is that in Detroit they still seem to think the press is behind their troubles."
=====
I post this, not to simply pile on, but to agree with Mr. Flint and point out to someone at GM or Ford that this is the consumer concensus, not just press view points.
As an enthusiast I find it somewhat frustrating and disappointing to drive through GM or Ford dealerships and find NOTHING that I would want to buy in a reasonable price range. I used to be a Ford buyer (5 Mustang GT's/LX 5.0/SVT and 1 Contour SVT) that has felt betrayed by terrible warranty service on my last Cobra and poor product offerings.
Ford, GM, are you listening???
If you are listening, I now drive Audi and Honda for their enthusiast-inspired product that has notable quality, fit and finish as well as great buyer/service experience at the dealership level. If you want to earn my business again, take a look at what they are doing. As a 30-something, it is not always the best price that gets my business.
Exerpts from the article...
=====
"... The <GM/Ford> leaders seem to be financial men who believe that costs are the number-one priority, not building the best vehicles. Certainly costs are important but the result has left GM years late, years late, in new engine and transmission developments, with the company still putting four-speed automatics in luxury cars (like the Cadillac DTS) when the competition is putting seven- and eight-speed transmissions in its luxury cars...
... And the men at the top of Detroit automakers never admit any errors or missteps. No matter how much market share is lost, no matter what the dollar losses, they never take responsibility...
What's sad is that in Detroit they still seem to think the press is behind their troubles."
=====
I post this, not to simply pile on, but to agree with Mr. Flint and point out to someone at GM or Ford that this is the consumer concensus, not just press view points.
As an enthusiast I find it somewhat frustrating and disappointing to drive through GM or Ford dealerships and find NOTHING that I would want to buy in a reasonable price range. I used to be a Ford buyer (5 Mustang GT's/LX 5.0/SVT and 1 Contour SVT) that has felt betrayed by terrible warranty service on my last Cobra and poor product offerings.
Ford, GM, are you listening???
If you are listening, I now drive Audi and Honda for their enthusiast-inspired product that has notable quality, fit and finish as well as great buyer/service experience at the dealership level. If you want to earn my business again, take a look at what they are doing. As a 30-something, it is not always the best price that gets my business.
08-14-2006, 06:15 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can['t say I disagree. I for one am still surprised Wagoner has his job after all these years. He talks a tough game these days, but then you ask yourself what has he really been doing (or any of GM's upper management) the last 20 years. I agree: I still can't believe that every time I read about a GM vehicle, it's got a 4-speed tranny in it. Reliable or not, 4-speeds might as well be 2 these days.
I'm also sick of this "blame the press" for everything mentality that people in business in government have. It's just another way to blame someone else for your screw-ups. This country has a serious leadership crisis, and business is no exception. All the focus is on the bottom line and what is coming in right this second, not whether the process is sustainable into the future. Misplaced priorities are a bitch.
I'm also sick of this "blame the press" for everything mentality that people in business in government have. It's just another way to blame someone else for your screw-ups. This country has a serious leadership crisis, and business is no exception. All the focus is on the bottom line and what is coming in right this second, not whether the process is sustainable into the future. Misplaced priorities are a bitch.
08-14-2006, 08:30 AM
#3
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Slamnasty,Aug 14 2006, 06:15 AM
I can['t say I disagree. I for one am still surprised Wagoner has his job after all these years. He talks a tough game these days, but then you ask yourself what has he really been doing (or any of GM's upper management) the last 20 years. I agree: I still can't believe that every time I read about a GM vehicle, it's got a 4-speed tranny in it. Reliable or not, 4-speeds might as well be 2 these days.
I'm also sick of this "blame the press" for everything mentality that people in business in government have. It's just another way to blame someone else for your screw-ups. This country has a serious leadership crisis, and business is no exception. All the focus is on the bottom line and what is coming in right this second, not whether the process is sustainable into the future. Misplaced priorities are a bitch.
I'm also sick of this "blame the press" for everything mentality that people in business in government have. It's just another way to blame someone else for your screw-ups. This country has a serious leadership crisis, and business is no exception. All the focus is on the bottom line and what is coming in right this second, not whether the process is sustainable into the future. Misplaced priorities are a bitch.
The Toyota Highlander has a 4spd auto mated with it's I4. Chances are the just replaced Camry also used a 4spd auto with the I4.
The Corolla uses a 4spd auto.
Did the just replaced Civic have more than 4?
The Nissan Sentra's auto is a 4spd.
At least one of the Altima's listed transmissions is a 4spd.
It's not like others aren't doing the same thing. Also, GM has 5 and 6 spd transmissions in many of there vehicles. Lots of other companies still have 4spds in their fleets. Now that GM has a home grown 6spd many of those 4spds are getting phased out. What's the problem?
08-14-2006, 08:36 AM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: City
Posts: 3,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
considering "the press" in this case are automotive journalists that spend most of thier words on subjective opinions rather than factual reporting, I can see where a company can have a problem with the kind of reporting that takes place. It seems like automotive journalists seem to think that jumping on the "American sucks" bandwagon is the best way to furhter their career. When's the last time someone posted an automotive article on this site that had anything but negative things to day about American cars? From reading the auto press, you'd think Ford and GM hardly sold any cars at all, yet the truth is quite different.
As far as the stupid "four speed vs. 7 or 8 speed autos" argument goes, why not come up with a legitiamate advantage to more than four speeds? Is it about paper specs, or about the cars themselves? And the C6 comes with a 6 speed auto, so it isn't like GM doesn't offer one at all, they just don't offer it in every vehicle in the line-up.
"The messenger" in this case is acting like a little bitch. If you are going to publish your opinions about individuals with absolutely no regard for whether your statements are appropriate for a newspaper, don't get all bunched up when displeasure is expressed.
As far as the stupid "four speed vs. 7 or 8 speed autos" argument goes, why not come up with a legitiamate advantage to more than four speeds? Is it about paper specs, or about the cars themselves? And the C6 comes with a 6 speed auto, so it isn't like GM doesn't offer one at all, they just don't offer it in every vehicle in the line-up.
"The messenger" in this case is acting like a little bitch. If you are going to publish your opinions about individuals with absolutely no regard for whether your statements are appropriate for a newspaper, don't get all bunched up when displeasure is expressed.
08-14-2006, 08:59 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Stack,Aug 14 2006, 08:55 AM
I don't object to a 4sp in many cars, but not in higher-priced cars over $30k or so. No one cares how many speeds the Cobalt or Civic has, but how about the Gran Prix with its 300hp and SC? Or the DTS, a $45k+ luxury car? In THOSE cars a 5 speed should be mandatory. Saying Toyota uses a 4speed in a Corolla is irrelevant.
As far as why, its not because more speeds are inherently better in and of themselves, its because more gearing means a better chance the engine will be driven at its most efficient speed for each situation. Think of gears like golf clubs: sure, I CAN use just a 5, 7, and 9 iron, but if I want to hit 140 yards, I either have to dial down the 7 or ratchet up the 9. Isn't it better to have an 8 to bridge that gap? Same with passing on the highway. With 4 speeds, top gear has to be higher to maintain reasonable gas mileage while cruising, and 1 step down, 3, has to be lower to facilitate passing. That means when you hit the gas to pass, you get a large step-down (big gap between 4th and 3rd), and you get more power but at the expense of much higher RPMs (gas use and noise) and a bigger jolt. If you had an intermediate gear in there, you could bridge the gap better, meaning less gas used, a smoother shift, and a quieter pass since you aren't jacking the RPMs up too high. This has been my experience when comparing our 4A 2001 Accord versus our 5A 2004 and 2006. (Pardon me if I used the wronge terminology for "lower" and "higher" gearing, I forget which one is which).
As far as why, its not because more speeds are inherently better in and of themselves, its because more gearing means a better chance the engine will be driven at its most efficient speed for each situation. Think of gears like golf clubs: sure, I CAN use just a 5, 7, and 9 iron, but if I want to hit 140 yards, I either have to dial down the 7 or ratchet up the 9. Isn't it better to have an 8 to bridge that gap? Same with passing on the highway. With 4 speeds, top gear has to be higher to maintain reasonable gas mileage while cruising, and 1 step down, 3, has to be lower to facilitate passing. That means when you hit the gas to pass, you get a large step-down (big gap between 4th and 3rd), and you get more power but at the expense of much higher RPMs (gas use and noise) and a bigger jolt. If you had an intermediate gear in there, you could bridge the gap better, meaning less gas used, a smoother shift, and a quieter pass since you aren't jacking the RPMs up too high. This has been my experience when comparing our 4A 2001 Accord versus our 5A 2004 and 2006. (Pardon me if I used the wronge terminology for "lower" and "higher" gearing, I forget which one is which).
08-14-2006, 09:12 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plano
Posts: 1,906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw a graph somewhere that showed the increased efficiency (gas mileage) of the 5/6/7 speed auto transmissions over the 4 speed. The differences were material, but tended, as you would expect, to lessen as the number of gears in the transmission went up. (Less difference between 6 and 7 speed vs 4 and 5 speed.) The arguement for appropriate rpm range for the driving situation is also well founded. The domestics haven't done a lot of innovating in the last few years. One notable exception that pops to mind being the Delphi magna-ride (whatever) shocks.
Maybe the hybrid joint venture between GM/BMW/Mercedes will pay some dividends for GM.
Maybe the hybrid joint venture between GM/BMW/Mercedes will pay some dividends for GM.
Trending Topics
08-14-2006, 11:52 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rockville,Aug 14 2006, 08:30 AM
You do realize that quite a few non-GM vehicles still come with 4spd autos don't you?...Some of the reminds me of the desire to have a 6spd manual instead of a 5spd. Why is 6 spd better? I certainly don't enjoy driving a 6spd manual any more than a 5spd and the mileage benefit is questionable at that point (assuming it's not a Corvette/Camaro type double overdrive). Keep in mind that those 4spd autos are frequently a good bit lighter than the 5 and 6 speed models...
...It's not like others aren't doing the same thing. Also, GM has 5 and 6 spd transmissions in many of there vehicles. Lots of other companies still have 4spds in their fleets. Now that GM has a home grown 6spd many of those 4spds are getting phased out. What's the problem?
...It's not like others aren't doing the same thing. Also, GM has 5 and 6 spd transmissions in many of there vehicles. Lots of other companies still have 4spds in their fleets. Now that GM has a home grown 6spd many of those 4spds are getting phased out. What's the problem?
Also, GM trying to sell a 4-speed auto with "paddle shifters" in cars like the Grand Prix is just laughable. C&D said as much when they tested that car last year. GM should've just shelved that idea rather than tack it on like a cheapie afterthought.
VW is also having a lot of public success with the DSG, and Nissan is moving forward with CVTs
For that matter, what is really wrong with a 4spd so long as it's smooth shifting?
I agree GM is capable of making quality products. What I don't agree on is how proactive GM is to join or lead the industry. I think they could have done more in the last 15 years to be in a better position than they are now.
08-14-2006, 02:19 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Palo Alto
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Slamnasty,Aug 14 2006, 11:52 AM
The problem is just about everyone else got their start earlier. Having a 4-speed auto in the Cadillac DTS in 2006 is assanine at best, fuel efficiency or otherwise. People paying over $50k want features, and a 4-speed auto is not getting it done, not matter how reliable or efficient it is. I'm probably arguing against my usual position that is pro-fuel efficiency here, but if I were in Cadillac's employ as a product planner, a 5-speed auto should've been on the cards 6 years ago at Caddy.
Also, GM trying to sell a 4-speed auto with "paddle shifters" in cars like the Grand Prix is just laughable. C&D said as much when they tested that car last year. GM should've just shelved that idea rather than tack it on like a cheapie afterthought.
VW is also having a lot of public success with the DSG, and Nissan is moving forward with CVTs
This point is a non-starter. If we used this line of thinking in all kinds of industries, we wouldn't have forwawrd progress. Some people probably still think a 3 on the tree is just fine. I agree: GM makes a damn fine and reliable 4-speed. But right or wrong, "more and better" is a natural function of capitalism, not "perfect the current thing and stick with it for 26 years". GM arguably lead the charge to more gears back in the 70s and 80s (5-speed vs. 4-speed manuals, and 4-speed vs. 3-speed autos). The fact that they don't now is disappointing, having grown up on GMs.
I agree GM is capable of making quality products. What I don't agree on is how proactive GM is to join or lead the industry. I think they could have done more in the last 15 years to be in a better position than they are now.
Also, GM trying to sell a 4-speed auto with "paddle shifters" in cars like the Grand Prix is just laughable. C&D said as much when they tested that car last year. GM should've just shelved that idea rather than tack it on like a cheapie afterthought.
VW is also having a lot of public success with the DSG, and Nissan is moving forward with CVTs
This point is a non-starter. If we used this line of thinking in all kinds of industries, we wouldn't have forwawrd progress. Some people probably still think a 3 on the tree is just fine. I agree: GM makes a damn fine and reliable 4-speed. But right or wrong, "more and better" is a natural function of capitalism, not "perfect the current thing and stick with it for 26 years". GM arguably lead the charge to more gears back in the 70s and 80s (5-speed vs. 4-speed manuals, and 4-speed vs. 3-speed autos). The fact that they don't now is disappointing, having grown up on GMs.
I agree GM is capable of making quality products. What I don't agree on is how proactive GM is to join or lead the industry. I think they could have done more in the last 15 years to be in a better position than they are now.
Perhaps part of the problem is GM's 4spds were really so good that they did stack up well against the 5spds used by other makers when it came to smooth driving. Well they did at first. Now the others have caught up and have the extra cog. Either way, I suspect the issue is nowhere near as clear cut as we make it out to be on this forum.
The padle shifter point is well taken. Then again I don't like paddle shifters in any car so it's irrelivant to me. Also, you are concentrating on older cars, not the newer cars GM is rolling out. The Grand Prix will be replaced with a RWD platform in the not too distant future so what's the issue?
The smooth shifting part is NOT a non-starter. Many, if not most buyers are not represented by the people on this forum. We are the few who actually care about these things. The majority of people don't care how many speeds their car has so long as it is comfy, quiet, gets good mileage, is quick, etc. They don't honestly know the difference. Sure, they may grasp some bit of technology and claim that's why something is so good* but in general they know and care little about the details of how things work so long as they do work.
Toyota has thrived in this market. The Camry historically has never been a technological leader. It's just a well done car. Same is true of many of the Lexus models. They aren't bought because of the bits of technology in the car, they are bought because people like the package. Toyota understands this. Mazda, Nissan and Mitsubishi were historical technology leaders. They did far more interesting and creative stuff. They also were not the successful companies that Honda and Toyota have turned out to be.
So, you might not want a car because it has a 4spd auto rather than a 5spd but for most consumers it won't mater so long as the driveline is smooth and the power and mileage is good.
I do agree that GM needs to be seen as a leader again. That is a powerful marketing message that serves Honda well. However, I also believe that there can be a balance.
Finally, let me say, I'm willing to defend GM today because I see many signs that say they get it. That doesn't mean they can do everything they need to do right now but it's clear they get it. For years we rightly said GM interiors were junk. Look at a new Tahoe. That's a nice interior. It's clear GM was (finally) listening. Cadillac was basically dead. Now the only old car they have left is the DTS. They are listening. These changes take time and it takes a long time to roll out all the new cars. It's even harder given the crushing legacy costs and the fuel costs killing the sales of their high profit trucks. Hell, GM may still go under. BUT every thing I have seen out of the company recently says they get it and the right changes are happening as fast as possible.
Perhaps the appropriate question for the Monday morning QBs on the web is "what would you do different?