C.H. wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 22:05:27 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
>>"C.H." > wrote in message
>>news
>
>
>>>Sebring: Geezers. Malibu: Beginner drivers.
>>
>>And your source for the demographic information? Last I read, the
>>demographics were similar for both models. But, I'll defer to your
>>source, please provide it.
>
>
> Observation. I don't have any positive or negative feelings for either
> car, so the observation should be pretty unbiased.

Hmm, most of the Sebring owners I know are young, just-out-of-college
people who picked them up cheap and used. But of course the whole idea
of relying on personal observation for demographic data is silly -
demographics can vary wildly from one area to another.

>
>
>>>>No one wins when there is a self-proclaimed big brother (GM) imposing
>>>>their will on the customer by telling them how they *must* use their
>>>>cars in a otherwise legal manner. Is GM the government now?
>>>
>>>How can GM 'impose' something on you?
>>
>>By enforcing their will on a group of people. Websters is your friend, by
>>the way.
>
>
> You mean 'forcing' not 'enforcing'. And I still don't see how they can
> force anything on you. Did the salesman force you at gunpoint to sign on
> the dotted line? Every company has the right to equip their cars the way
> they deem useful for them, just as you have the right not to buy a car
> that is not equipped the way you want it to be.
>
>
>>>Did they force you at gun point to buy their car?
>>
>>Apparently gunpoint will soon be the only way they will sell the cars,
>>if the trend continues.
>
>
> Weird, the sales numbers for GM don't seem so bad right now.

At this exact moment, no, but that's mostly due to their new "employee
discount" sales gimmick. Their numbers looked downright terrifying
prior to that.

> Quality is up
> according to a whole number of sources, and the lineup that is coming out
> now (looks quite appealing to me. And as you yourself stated so loudly,
> people don't dislike cars just because they dislike a feature.
>
> GM's past problems stem from the cars being designed by bean counters, not
> car enthusiasts. And this seems to be about to change.

I respectfully disagree, the number of obviously bean-counter-designed
cars in GM's lineup vastly outnumbers the obviously enthusiast-designed
ones.

>
>>>Or were you just too lazy to read the spec sheet and see that the car
>>>has your hated DRLs and ABS?
>>
>>I was willing to live with the ABS. Actually, ABS wasn't offered on the
>>base Malibu...so I could have gotten the Malibu without ABS. I also
>>understood that the car was equipped with DRL's. However, nowhere was
>>it explained (in the specifications or otherwise) that the driver did
>>not have any optiopn or control over them.
>
>
> Lack of research.
>
>
>>Remember, at the time I was familiar with another a cmpetitor that also
>>had DRL's, but they would configure them to your preference.
>
>
> In other words, you didn't test drive the car or were so inattentive
> during the test drive that you didn't see that the light switch has no off
> position.

I think it's reasonable to assume that a light switch would have an off
position. The fact that he didn't notice it was because it's really
fairly surprising that any mfgr. would be so stupid as to not include
it. Yes, there are very good reasons for wanting to kill all your
lights, or switch to only parking lights - as repeatedly stated in this
newsgroup. Military installation security checkpoints, restaurant
parking lots, Xmas light displays, to name the first three that come to
mind.

>
>
>>I had no reason to believe that GM wouldn't configure the DRLs to my
>>preference, since their competitors will...how would one know GM had a
>>enforcement policy.
>
>
> You had a very good reason to do your homework. If you don't it's your
> fault and yours alone.
>

GM is still taking a very consumer-unfriendly position.

>
>>>Fact is: You knew and you didn't mind the features back then.
>>
>>Your assumptions are really quite wrong nearly all of the time. It's
>>quite amazing.
>
>
> If you really didn't know a feature you feel strongly about, you are at
> fault.
>

Are you quite finished telling James what an idiot he is yet?

>
>>>Now you bought a car that doesn't have them and all of sudden you hate
>>>them, because you can't admit that you purchased the wrong car without
>>>researching it properly.
>>
>>I see you have it all figured out. Yes I bought the Malibu knowing the
>>features. The features didn't work as advertised (the common websters
>>definition of automatic, not your skewed made up to make it fit version
>>of the meaning of the word).
>
>
> Webster: "having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism". They do.
> Thus the lights _are_ automatic. Btw, I want to see your "Eebster"
> definition...
>
>
>>I do have a problem being sold something that doesn't work as
>>advertised (and causes problems, I discoverd to boot).
>
>
> And I have a problem with people, who are too lazy or too stupid to
> research a car properly before buying it and afterwards howling and
> whining that it doesn't do exactly what they want.
>

as above, you done yet?

>
>>I supose it did cause a "crusade" of sorts on my part. Since GM
>>wouldn't work with me, I canned the Malibu at a $6K loss to get the
>>Sebring that I knew could be configured the way I wanted it.
>
>
> ROTFL! Nice of you to finally admit that you 1)bought a car without any
> research worth mentioning, 2) hate GM (because you took a hit when you
> ditched the car you bought without proper research) and 3) are on a
> crusade because you are ****ed about yourself and need someone else to
> blame.
>
> GM is not at fault here. The cars work as advertised and there is any
> number of sources telling you exactly what the car does and doesn't do.
> You are alone to blame for lack of research and buying a car without even
> properly test driving it.
>

Blah, blah, blah...

>
>>So you couldn't be more wrong...yet again.
>
>
> On the contrary. I was right about you all along.
>
>
>
>>>Their foreign competitors are much more expensive. And Chrysler was too
>>>cheap to even fit ABS on the LXi.
>>
>>Wrong (yet again), ABS was a option available on both the LXi and the
>>LX.
>
>
> Yes, an option for quite some money. Oh my, did you really think they left
> ABS out because it is dangerous? They left it out because it costs money.
> And if a customer still wants it, they have to pay, which increases
> revenue.
>
>
>>>Funny: Their higher models all have ABS stock, which clearly shows the
>>>reason they don't provide is not to give the customer a choice but to
>>>save a few dollars and make even more dollars by selling ABS as an
>>>optional feature.
>>
>>You're just so good at figuring things out, aren't you. Perhaps that
>>particular customer base that buys high end cars had a high request for
>>ABS? But, I don't know why (and neither do you).
>
>
> Ferrari has ABS stock on all models. Porsche has ABS stock on all models.
> Ferrari even fitted it on their formula one racers until it got outlawed.
> Mercedes, BMW, all mitsize to luxury cars from Japan and the US. Everyone
> has ABS except for a bunch of cheapo base models for clueless penny
> pinchers.

The ABS fitted to high end sports cars and F1 racers is very different
from the ABS fitted to consumer-grade sedans, and often has
driver-selectable programs ranging from "normal" to "don't intervene
until you detect that I'm about to commit vehicular suicide" and
sometimes even "off."

>
> Btw, I am still waiting for your explanation, how you induce a controlled
> skid on your FWD box without ABS.

Huh? Surely there's a typo in that sentence 'cause it doesn't make sense.

>
>
>>>>they're free for the asking (last I checked). Less than 5% of Ford and
>>>>Chrysler cars on the road have them.
>>>
>>>Before you start claiming further numbers I suggest you back these up.
>>
>>Do YOU see many Fords and Chryslers on the road with DRL's. Okay, I'll
>>double it and let's say it's 10% (which it's not). Still that's 90%
>>that have chosen *not* to have DRLs.
>
>
> No, they just have *not chosen* to have DRLs, mostly because many people
> are indifferent about the subject and just don't check boxes they don't
> understand.
>
>
>>That's a potentially HUGE customer base that GM is simply writing off.
>
>
> No, that's merely a huge customer base that doesn't care one way or
> another.
>
>
>>And for what?
>
>
> For safety. Fatal accidents down 5-20%

Due to DRL's? I call bull**** until I see a cite. Even most insurance
companies admit that there's no benefit to DRL's, or at least don't give
a discount for DRL's which is pretty much the same thing.

>
>
>>>[anti-GM-rant snipped]
>>
>>Uhm, GM would be helped if they gave the customer base what they want.
>
>
> ... which is fun to drive cars.

It would be nice if they made those, yes.

> No one cares about DRLs except for a few
> 'back to the 50s' crusaders.
>

And most of the readers of this newsgroup, and most people who take an
active interest in road safety. Yourself included, apparently.
Granted, you're wrong, but you apparently have a strong opinion on the
subject.

>
>>Hopefully they're listening and actualy do it. Maybe sales will go up
>>again without having to practically give them away.
>
>
> Yesterday you were howling about the GTO not being as cheap as the Vette,
> today they are giving them away. You are really an amusing in-duh-viduum,
> James.
>
> Chris

Who said anything about the GTO? His statement was that GM was
practically giving away cars *in general,* which may or may not be true
(I'm not privy to their cost-per-unit compared to their current pricing)
but it's an undeniable fact that they're relying on discounts and sales
gimmicks to move the metal, which is not a viable long term business
strategy.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel