GM dealers stand by Wagoner
"Stand by
your man" might be an appropriate theme song for General Motors these days. Just a few days after GM's board
of directors expressed their support of CEO Rick Wagoner, GM dealers have come out to say that they, too, support the
company's big cheese, taking out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal last Friday. Investors aren't
so happy, however, which has put Rick on the interview circuit to defend his record. Let's hope the "bold
steps" the dealers see Wagoner taking start to appease investors and revitalize consumer confidence in the
company.
[Detroit Free Press]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bernie 11:43AM (4/10/2006)
It kind've reminds me of how America, with all the evidence of stupidity and incompetence in their leadership, STILL voted George Bush to a second term in 2004.
I hope GM's results are better than this country's have been, because if they aren't, GM will cease to be a relevant force in the automotive world.
Reply
That One Person 11:46AM (4/10/2006)
I like how everyone blames Wagoner for GM's problems. I guess you could blame him for not making GM a better company in one day but hey...hes not God.
Its simple: he inherited this company with a lot of problems and he is doing the BEST he can with what hes got...give him a freakin chance people!
Reply
sal 11:58AM (4/10/2006)
"he inherited this company with a lot of problems and he is doing the BEST he can with what hes got...give him a freakin chance people."
LMAO: Wagoner became president and CEO of GM in 1998, when GM was doing fine. In contrast, Carlos Ghosn iherited a mess at Nissan in 1999 and within 4 years completely turned the company around. Today Nissan is more profitable (as a percentage of company's size)than any other car maker in the world.
How much of a chance does Rick need? The only guy I'd fire faster is Bob Lutz, whose done absolutely nothing for his hefty salary.
Reply
Steve 12:42PM (4/10/2006)
When Rick inherited the company in 1998, GM was in crisis (not as bad as today), but still trouble. He turned it around then and lets hope he can repeat the success. The real lesson here is not to rest on your laurels, after they came back in 2000, GM simply did not do enough to keep pace with the other automobile manufacturers.
Reply
RossL 12:52PM (4/10/2006)
#3 wrote:
>> The only guy I'd fire faster is Bob Lutz, whose done absolutely nothing for his hefty salary
Nothing? Heck, who do you think removed the cladding from all those Pontiacs? And they said American ingenuity was dead!
Reply
Tool 1:12PM (4/10/2006)
"he inherited this company with a lot of problems and he is doing the BEST he can with what hes got...give him a freakin chance people."
I think 6 years and billions of dollars in red ink is a freakin chance. Automotive News reported this morning that Rick forced the GM board to support him or that he would resign.
It is time for a regime change. The GM board needs to get some balls and terminate Rick.
I'd like to see a visionary, sharp turnaround artist who takes the bold action necessary to get GM back on track. GM has some great new vehicles and some really nice stuff on the way.
Now they need to change the pathetic Detroit-Think mentality at GM and make GM great again.
Reply
rw 1:49PM (4/10/2006)
1998=Jack Smith
Reply
Koba 1:58PM (4/10/2006)
Rick Wagoner needs to go, and anyone that won't stand up and say that needs to go, should leave as well. He is the typical "Business as Usual" type of business man. The only problem is, that with a constantly changing world, country, market, etc, the strategies that brought success 40 years ago won't work today. And what's most important is that when 40 year old strategies have failed for the last 20 years, they aren't going to magically turn the ship around in the near future. The car market is NOT cyclical, it is continually advancing and innovating in NEW directions. This guy and his posse are all just obsolete, GM needs new thinkers, ideas, and most importantly relationships. Can the UAW, can Delphi, bring production in house, and offer benefits that are competitive TODAY (that means cutting them).
GM has a serious image problem, starting with MSRP. Just cut the damn MSRP to compete with the Koreans and be done with it (and while you're at it, their signature warranty looks good as well). Rick and the gang all come from a time when Detroit metal was THE standard, but the problem is, many younger Americans have grown up during a time when the Japanese had serious offerings, and have become THE standard. My father remembers the first Hondas in this country, juxtaposed to his mother's new 1974 Grand Prix. He'll never see them in the light that I will, considering my first experience was with a 1990 Accord. I remember buying that car after looking at Grand Ams that were 5 years newer, and even comparing the car to a taurus. But I digress.
Facts are that Rick and the gang presided over one of the most monstrously inconceived eras in automotive history, the SUV craze. And instead of using massive profits from these models to modernize their passenger car line, and return that to profittability, they CONTINUED to treat passenger cars as placeholders, and fuel efficient vehicles as dead weights. Simple lack of foresight, but what do you expect from people who spend all day dreaming about the glory days of the 50's and 60's, instead of new victories for tomorrow?
Reply
caffee 2:01PM (4/10/2006)
Roger Smith can be blamed for a big slice of GM's problems today. When GM was flush with cash(in the eighties), instead of placing the company on better footing to deal with the onslaught of it's competitors, he chose to push a lot of bad investments and purchases, that cost GM dearly.
The only thing Roger should have been in charge of is the dishwasher at the local Detroit Toot-and-tell-it diner.
Reply
Kitten 2:29PM (4/10/2006)
This is in regard to comment #6 by "Tool". He says: ". . . necessary to get GM back on track. GM has some great new vehicles and some really nice stuff on the way."
You say GM has some great new vehicles and some really nice stuff on the way..... so where do you think these new vehicles and nice stuff came from???? How about the existing regime? I would say yes, the current guys are working hard to make things happen and you don't even realize it. Everyone is so impatient. I would bet that all of you who are making these negative comments are the ones who only want to have perpetual compensation and benefits coming your way. Does anyone making these comments even KNOW Rick or have you ever met him? Are you all just bellowing at someone because you have to accept some changes. It's up to everyone to work TOGETHER.
Reply
John Smith 3:02PM (4/10/2006)
How did George Bush get into this discussion?
Reply
John Smith 3:04PM (4/10/2006)
How did George Bush get into this?
Reply
King Ding Dong 5:15PM (4/10/2006)
The fact that two of Chevrolet's bread and butter cars were introduced to the market badly lagging compared to the Camry and Accord is reason enough to show Mr. Wagoner and his team the door.
** Americans are excited by technology, as best exhibited by the iPod and what it has done for Apple's business.
The Impala and Malibu both offer push-rod engines with 30 year old architecture and 4-speed automatics.
In contrast, the Accord and Camry offer hybrid engines.
Honda and Toyota constantly challenge themselves to bring down the cost of technology whereas GM constantly looks how to save a buck by re-cycling existing technology such as push-rod engines.
** As long as GM comes out with push-rod engine powered cars, then they will continue to go down the toilet. Mark my words.
Reply
whofan 7:20PM (4/10/2006)
I don`t get the ever present push rod controversy. OHV or OHC one is no more advanced than the other.
Both have advantages over the other. I like the OHV myself. Its leeds to a compact clean engine bay with a short timing chain.
Reply
mikesright 8:45PM (4/10/2006)
Hey King Ding Dong, do you even know the first thing about engines, retard? OHV is actually a better, more compact design that gets more low-end grunt as well as a better powerband that is more suited to the driving habits of Americans. It actually is the better design, since it also can get better fuel economy than a OHC competitor, and it can more easily get more fuel-saving tech, such as displacement on demand. Don't think it can rev high? See Corvette Z06, 7100 RPM, and that's with a longer stroke than your Dad's dick. Smoothness? That's more of a sound-deadening issue, and an OHC engine "screams" at the top of the powerband worse than a pushrod engine "grunts" at the bottom. See Toyota 1.8L for that. Also, much of the reason GM won't do OHC engines instead is because it costs more to do a OHC right, (GM use timing chains instead of belts, etc) and OHC is much more liable to break than an OHC, because when you break a pushrod, you break a $2 piece. Your cam, directly actuating the valve, (and much stronger than a pushrod) will open the valve on you, which will hit the piston, and shatter your precious OHC engine on you, especially when that cost-saving belt breaks. In conclusion, only dumbasses really think OHV is old-tech, and most of this blog must jack off at night to the sound of DOHC, and for no good reason.
Reply
King Ding Dong 11:09PM (4/10/2006)
#13 - Ouch, you must have ben laid off from a GM plant building 30 year old technology based cars, or, just bought an Impala and lost 50% of its value driving it off the lot.
I can tell from your poor writing style that you suffer from a second rate education (or should I say, edumacation), so I will explain my point in simpler terms to you.
Honda and Toyota continually strive to introduce and bring down the cost of new technology. Variable valve timing was introduced in Acura's NSX car and gradually spread across the entire range. Toyota just commited to introducing hybrid engines to all of its car models.
GM's management does not understand this concept as evidenced by their continued support of out-dated push rod technology.
Sure, push-rod engines are theoretically cheaper to make than their more complex overhead cam bretheren. A technology driven company will strive to find ways to bring down the cost of OHC engines to the level of OHV engines, just as Toyota and Honda have.
GM is lazy on this account and is paying for it with poor resale values, etc.
You must be really ticked off because you just realized that your new Imapala lost over half its value the moment you drove it off the lot. Or, perhaps, you were laid off from a GM plant building old-tech cars that tech-savvy consumers no longer want.
Go back to school and maybe you can get a better job and move out of your parent's basement.
Reply
Lithous 11:40PM (4/10/2006)
King Ding Dong,
Thank you for linking to the piss poor site lsva.com. It is so piss poor that it appears to be trying to simulate a now old technology called portlets. Real portlets can be easily moved around, opened and closed to hide and show content (I guess that is what the white arrow within the green square at the top of each simulated portlet is supposed to represent.
Anyway, crappy engines and crappy websites. Who's to judge. You accept such low quality from the website for which you advert, it all just doesn't make any sense for you to spew about technology. How about they use some AJAX and allow for moving the portlet looking things on-the-fly to different parts of the page?
Wait, don't tell me, you have nothing to do with their technology (or lack there of) and you just advert the link because your ding dong makes you do it? Fair enough.
Reply
whofan 4:20PM (4/11/2006)
"Sure, push-rod engines are theoretically cheaper to make than their more complex overhead cam bretheren."
Push rod engines are not cheaper and OHC is not more complex.
With lifters, rods ,rockerarms I`d say the OHV has more moving parts and is more complex.
The OHC may have more than one cam with a much longer timing chain wich can strech over time or it may just have a cheap belt to drive the cam.
Reply
King Ding Dong 11:58AM (4/12/2006)
Quote from: http://www.billzilla.org/2v4v.htm
"So why can't non- twin cam engines be made to spin to their full potential?
The answer is of course the valve gear. A push rod engine is the worst possible design for high revs and best power. The next up the food chain is the SOHC (Single Over Head Cam), where the cam runs on small cam followers. Next is the SOHC with buckets, such as the VW Golf 1600. (They use a bucket-over-valve system, identical to a twin cam, but with only two valves side by side). Boss of the wash is the twin cam, who has great advantages over all other types.
Bottom line is Rick Wagoner continues to support low-tech engines because he believes that consumers are stupid and can't tell the difference.
I am here to tell you that consumers ARE tech savvy as evidenced by the succes of products like Apple's iPod.
For all you GM-Push rod supporters out there, I have one question: How is your resale value doing?
Reply