If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote:
> > > Everything. If a car is not fun to drive I don't bother buying it. And if I > want a fun little commuter I am much more likely to buy a Neon SRT-4 than a > Corolla XRS. The Neon SRT-4 is indeed nice. No question it is infinitely more fun than the Corolla. The question is whether it is reliable. Not very likely, given that it is in its first (or second) year. Same question applies to the hemi engines. |
Ads |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
"N8N" > wrote in message ups.com... > A lot *fewer* people have been buying GM recently than has been the > case in the past, that's a fact. Check your facts. From http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/0...701video3.html GM Sales At 19-Year High Annalisa Burgos, 07.01.05, 5:35 PM ET NEW YORK - In the headlines this afternoon, General Motors' U.S. sales last month hit its highest level in nearly 19 years. ----------------------- From http://www.gm.com/company/investor_i...ighlights.html GM Worlwide Sales (Units) 1996 - 8,400,000 1997 - 8,776,000 1998 - 8,024,000 1999 - 8,786,000 2000 - 8,746,000 2001 - 8.073,000 2002 - 8,411,000 2003 - 8,098,000 2004 - 8,241,000 Ed |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
"C. E. White" > wrote in message news:2OYBe.178129$xm3.68157@attbi_s21... > > "N8N" > wrote in message > ups.com... > >> A lot *fewer* people have been buying GM recently than has been the >> case in the past, that's a fact. > > Check your facts. > > From > http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/0...701video3.html > > GM Sales At 19-Year High > Annalisa Burgos, 07.01.05, 5:35 PM ET > > NEW YORK - In the headlines this afternoon, General Motors' U.S. sales > last month hit its highest level in nearly 19 years. > ----------------------- Uhm, the operative words here are "last month". The "employee discount" marketing campaign was genius and produced a 41% anomoly. A anomoly does not a trend make. All months in 2005 prior to June had year-over-year sales number declines. > From > http://www.gm.com/company/investor_i...ighlights.html > > GM Worlwide Sales (Units) > 1996 - 8,400,000 > 1997 - 8,776,000 > 1998 - 8,024,000 > 1999 - 8,786,000 > 2000 - 8,746,000 > 2001 - 8.073,000 > 2002 - 8,411,000 > 2003 - 8,098,000 > 2004 - 8,241,000 > > Ed > I see that 2004 was a improvement over 2003, 2001, and 1998. It fell short compared to 2002, 2000, 1999, 1997 & 1996. If one were to graph these numbers into a trend line (the 1996 to 2004 numbers), it would be a declining trend. Up until June (which is the month of the employee discount campaign) 2005 sales were off 2004 levels substantially. I understand the 41% pop in June brought them close to 2004 levels now. |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
223rem wrote:
> The Neon SRT-4 is indeed nice. No question it is infinitely more fun > than the Corolla. > > The question is whether it is reliable. Not very likely, given that > it is in its first (or second) year. > > Same question applies to the hemi engines. The LS1 was reliable right from the start. Why shouldn't the Hemi be? If Toyota or Honda made either you would be raving about it. But of course, it is american, so if you can't find fault with its performance you have to with its reliability. Chris |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
223rem wrote:
> C.H. wrote: > >> Because the Sonata is a horrible car. > > Edmunds.com disagrees. Edmunds is good for checking prices. For auto tests I go elsewhere. > But I'm sure you've driven it. The new Sonata? Not yet. And to be quite honest, I'm not really interested either, but I suppose eventually I'll get one as a rental. Chris |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
James C. Reeves wrote:
[whine...] If GM sales are down, GM is at fault. If they are up, GM still is at fault. The 'employee discount' campaign is not so successful because the savings are greater than they were before but because people know they get a decent deal without having to haggle for all kinds of 'college discount' and 'dealer incentive' and so on. Face it, most people do not like to haggle. And I think the discounts, many of them with conditions attached or '2 at this price' were not making many people wanting to buy. I personally love to haggle but I know I am the exception, which is why a straightforward marketing campaign like 'you pay what we pay' is successful. And if GM keeps up the good marketing more and more people are going to notice that GM doesn't sell a Citation or Pontiac 6000 any more but good cars for the money. Chris |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message ... > James C. Reeves wrote: > > [whine...] I called the GM marketing campaign "genious". And you call that a whine? The rest of the comment was statistical fact (which can be turned around). > > If GM sales are down, GM is at fault. If they are up, GM still is at > fault. No kidding. Do you have someone else in mind that is at fault for either situation? > The 'employee discount' campaign is not so successful because the savings > are greater than they were before but because people know they get a > decent > deal without having to haggle for all kinds of 'college discount' and > 'dealer incentive' and so on. No arguement from me. Interesting that the Washington Post (a couple of Sunday editions back), mentioned that the average sales price for GM cars in June was about $200-400 *higher* compared to previous months in 2005. The employee discount isn't really the better deal comapratively speaking to the rebate and incentives that had been in place. But the marketing apparently made it sound better...pure genious. > Face it, most people do not like to haggle. And I think the discounts, > many > of them with conditions attached or '2 at this price' were not making many > people wanting to buy. I personally love to haggle but I know I am the > exception, which is why a straightforward marketing campaign like 'you pay > what we pay' is successful. Did I say genious... :-) > And if GM keeps up the good marketing more and more people are going to > notice that GM doesn't sell a Citation or Pontiac 6000 any more but good > cars for the money. No argument from me on that (some exception, but fewer then their used to be). |
#348
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message ... > 223rem wrote: > >> The Neon SRT-4 is indeed nice. No question it is infinitely more fun >> than the Corolla. >> >> The question is whether it is reliable. Not very likely, given that >> it is in its first (or second) year. >> >> Same question applies to the hemi engines. > > The LS1 was reliable right from the start. Why shouldn't the Hemi be? The new Chrysler HEMI engines are "displacement-on-demand" technology that switches to 4-cylinder operation when under light load. I'd likely wait 3 to 4 years before buying one as well to see how well those engines pan out over time. We all remember Cadillac's similar "V8-6-4" technology. > If Toyota or Honda made either you would be raving about it. Not me...never owned either one either. Even if I was interested, I wouldn't buy first or second run vehicles from any manufacturer. > But of course, it is american, so if you can't find fault with > its performance you have to with its reliability. > Why say stuff like that to/about people? |
#349
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:29:57 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > ... >> The LS1 was reliable right from the start. Why shouldn't the Hemi be? > > The new Chrysler HEMI engines are "displacement-on-demand" technology that > switches to 4-cylinder operation when under light load. I'd likely wait 3 > to 4 years before buying one as well to see how well those engines pan out > over time. We all remember Cadillac's similar "V8-6-4" technology. As the Hemis are not available without ABS anyway there is no chance that you will buy one ever - or is ABS ok after all as long as it is not from Chevy? >> If Toyota or Honda made either you would be raving about it. > > Not me...never owned either one either. Even if I was interested, I > wouldn't buy first or second run vehicles from any manufacturer. Say, since when is your name rem223? The comment was a direct answer to a rem223-posting and I really have to wonder why >> But of course, it is american, so if you can't find fault with its >> performance you have to with its reliability. >> > Why say stuff like that to/about people? Because unfortunately it is true. Chris |
#350
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:21:00 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > ... >> James C. Reeves wrote: >> >> [whine...] > > I called the GM marketing campaign "genious". And you call that a whine? Yes, because you are trying to insinuate that this was only a short lived success. >> If GM sales are down, GM is at fault. If they are up, GM still is at >> fault. > > No kidding. Do you have someone else in mind that is at fault for either > situation? I would not call good sales numbers anyone's fault. They are GM's success. >> The 'employee discount' campaign is not so successful because the >> savings are greater than they were before but because people know they >> get a decent deal without having to haggle for all kinds of 'college >> discount' and 'dealer incentive' and so on. > > No arguement from me. Interesting that the Washington Post (a couple of > Sunday editions back), mentioned that the average sales price for GM > cars in June was about $200-400 *higher* compared to previous months in > 2005. The employee discount isn't really the better deal comapratively > speaking to the rebate and incentives that had been in place. But the > marketing apparently made it sound better...pure genious. No, the deal is better for many people. With the rebates and incentives the customers were suckered into the dealerships where the sales droids promptly would proceed to dismember the less experienced ones by thelling them 'oh, we already sold the one car we had at that price, but here is a XXX at $YYYYY ($YYYYY > MSRP, but they of course don't mention that), that's a great deal. And people get pressured into really bad deals. With the employee pricing the cars are stickered much lower than they previously were and they are stickered consistently, which makes even the less haggle experienced unlikely to get suckered into a bad deal. >> Face it, most people do not like to haggle. And I think the discounts, >> many >> of them with conditions attached or '2 at this price' were not making >> many people wanting to buy. I personally love to haggle but I know I am >> the exception, which is why a straightforward marketing campaign like >> 'you pay what we pay' is successful. > > Did I say genious... :-) You mean ingenious or genius, one or the other. In this context ingenious. Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option | ls_dot1 | Chrysler | 11 | May 26th 05 01:49 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Pete | Technology | 41 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 3 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Why no rear lights with DRLs? | Don Stauffer | Technology | 26 | April 26th 05 04:16 AM |
Chevy Tahoe DRls? | BE | Driving | 0 | March 28th 05 03:45 PM |