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 |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > 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. What else would you consider it? Dumbass. nate |
Ads |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:44:23 -0700, N8N wrote: > > > > > > > C.H. wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:45:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote: > >> > >> > Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could "beat" > >> > the ABS. > >> > >> In certain vehicles in a non-emergency situation with about equal > >> friction on all wheels in a straight line I think you may be right. > >> Otherwise you are very likely wrong. > > > > No, ESPECIALLY when there's unequal friction. > > Explain. No. You won't get it and will just come up with more bull****, and then accuse me of being "rude." Quite frankly, if you don't understand the statement I posted, you won't understand my explanation either. If that's "rude" then so be it. nate |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > 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. How so? I stated that a 41% jump in June was a anomoly (created by the campaign) and how it brought their numbers up close to the previous year a.d that alone doesn't make a trend. The future sales numbers is anybody's guess. >>> 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. I agree. However, you're the one that used the word "fault". Success and failure both rest with GM management. >>> 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. I already agreed with your premise of "no-haggling" benefits. But the deal on average (across the board) wasn't better. You might want to read the article (if it's still posted). Like I said, the article stated that the average sales prices (from title and registration records) was $200-$400 higher in June with this campaign. That means that people were paying more on average than before for the cars. But that is part of the genious of it. Sell more cars and make more on each (on average). That has to help reduse the losses for this quarter, one would think. >>> 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. > |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > 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 The master of the subject change strikes again! > or is ABS ok after all as long as it is not from > Chevy? To refresh your memory...I can tolerate ABS on any car, but prefer not having it. You're confusing ABS with another well know topic that I actually can't tolerate. I'm beginning to worry about you Chris! Keeping different subjects "compartmentalized" is a tough nut for you, it appears. >>> 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 I was adding my thoughts to a public forum...as you do. Or are there different rules for different people. If you want to have a private conversation, email is better suited. >>> 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. > Regardless if it is true or not...it doesn't answer the question. Why get personal and inflame people with those sorts of comments? Everyone (even you) have biases.. That is already understood by everyone. Pointing them out is redundant. |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:14:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> or is ABS ok after all as long as it is not from Chevy? > > To refresh your memory...I can tolerate ABS on any car, but prefer not > having it. You're confusing ABS with another well know topic that I > actually can't tolerate. I'm beginning to worry about you Chris! Keeping > different subjects "compartmentalized" is a tough nut for you, it appears. On the contrary, I find it highly hilarious how you are trying to keep your little world of prejudices, misinformation and hatred when it is prodded from different directions. >>> Why say stuff like that to/about people? >> >> Because unfortunately it is true. >> > Regardless if it is true or not...it doesn't answer the question. Why get > personal and inflame people with those sorts of comments? Everyone (even > you) have biases.. That is already understood by everyone. Pointing them > out is redundant. No, it is not. Whether or not you have a bias against sausages for breakfast indeed is not relevant for this discussion which is why I am not talking about that. But an extreme bias against US-manufacturers and/or specifically GM is quite relevant in this discussion. Chris |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:04:54 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> Yes, because you are trying to insinuate that this was only a short >> lived success. > > How so? I stated that a 41% jump in June was a anomoly (created by the > campaign) and how it brought their numbers up close to the previous year > a.d that alone doesn't make a trend. The future sales numbers is > anybody's guess. How do you know it is an anomaly then? >>> 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. > > I agree. However, you're the one that used the word "fault". Success and > failure both rest with GM management. I am the one, who said that _you_ see it as a _fault_ of GM that they came up with good marketing and sold a lot of cars lately. You had to find something wrong with GM's success because said success blasts a thick fat hole into your theory that GM's cars are not being bought because of DRLs or other features. >> 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. > > I already agreed with your premise of "no-haggling" benefits. But the > deal on average (across the board) wasn't better. I never claimed it was. On the contrary. This supports my view that the old 'haggle or you are gonna get fleeced' method of selling cars was actually driving customers away, not your hated DRLs. Chris |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:27:18 -0700, N8N wrote:
> > > C.H. wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:21:00 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >> >> > 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. > > What else would you consider it? Dumbass. As neither you nor I can determine whether the success is short lived I don't consider it anything until I know whether it was short-lived or not. And I suggest you go and find your manners, you are sounding like a brat. Chris |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:29:42 -0700, N8N wrote:
> > > C.H. wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:44:23 -0700, N8N wrote: >> >> >> > >> > C.H. wrote: >> >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:45:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote: >> >> >> >> > Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could >> >> > "beat" the ABS. >> >> >> >> In certain vehicles in a non-emergency situation with about equal >> >> friction on all wheels in a straight line I think you may be right. >> >> Otherwise you are very likely wrong. >> > >> > No, ESPECIALLY when there's unequal friction. >> >> Explain. > > No. Because you can't, not because you are afraid I won > You won't get it and will just come up with more bull****, and then > accuse me of being "rude." You just called me dumbass for not sharing your opinion in another posting, that _is_ rude, which is why me calling you rude is not an accusation but the truth. Quite frankly, if you don't understand the > statement I posted, you won't understand my explanation either. If that's > "rude" then so be it. OK, as you are incapable of explaining why supposedly your view is true I will explain to you why it is wrong: As long as there is equal friction on all four wheels and you are braking in a straight line you can brake close to the traction limit of your tires, possibly closer than ABS can. As soon as the traction becomes unequal between tires you have to reduce your brake force so far that the tire with the weakest friction does not break loose, especially if you are not braking in a straight line. ABS on the other hand does not have this restriction and brakes every wheel to _its_ traction limit, which produces significantly shorter stopping distances, especially when you have to brake in a curve, where the lateral forces on your wheels are unequal to begin with. IOW under ideal conditions you may be able to outbrake ABS, in real world conditions you are not. Chris |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:04:54 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> "C.H." > wrote in message >> news > >>> Yes, because you are trying to insinuate that this was only a short >>> lived success. >> >> How so? I stated that a 41% jump in June was a anomoly (created by the >> campaign) and how it brought their numbers up close to the previous year >> a.d that alone doesn't make a trend. The future sales numbers is >> anybody's guess. > > How do you know it is an anomaly then? A sales number for June that is far outside of trend or forcast is a textbook example of the meaning of the word. It IS a anomoly until and unless future sales numbers show otherwise. >>>> 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. >> >> I agree. However, you're the one that used the word "fault". Success >> and >> failure both rest with GM management. > > I am the one, who said that _you_ see it as a _fault_ of GM that they came > up with good marketing and sold a lot of cars lately. No, I clearly said I saw it a genious (or ingenious). How can one possibly intrepret that as my seeing it as a "fault"? > You had to find something wrong with GM's success > because said success blasts a thick fat > hole into your theory that GM's cars are > not being bought because of DRLs > or other features. Uhm, I was praising the "ingenious" marketing campaign..comparing it to how poor sales had been earlier in the year and how it's possible now to meet last years numbers (at least now they are in reach). How one intreprets that as "finding something wrong" is beyond me. Do you just like to argue even when there isn't anything to argue about? Or do you really believe this stuff you make up in your head that you think people said (or meant to say for some nefarious agenda that is made clearly up in your head as well). >>> 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. >> >> I already agreed with your premise of "no-haggling" benefits. But the >> deal on average (across the board) wasn't better. > > I never claimed it was. On the contrary. This supports my view that the > old 'haggle or you are gonna get fleeced' method of selling cars was > actually driving customers away, not your hated DRLs. DRLs have nothing at all to do with this. DRL's are a constant factor in the before and after numbers (they existed before the jump in sales and they existed after...so DRL's offer no influence positive or negative since nothing changed with them). Surely you realize that the only factor in the sales jump was the ad campaign (all else being equal). The dynamics of auto purchasing decisions are involved and contain numerous criteria. Removing the "haggle-factor" will certainly bring some people in...no question about it. There are still a percentage of buyer that won't buy a car equipped with DRL's as well, regardless of what the deals look like. There is no correlation of any decision criteria in the dynamic of sales decisions to sales numbers alone without knowing (by interviews or surveys) what specifically caused people to buy or not to buy with the promotion. In other words, there is no way for either of us to know what the impact is without the missing piece of data that neither of us possesses. |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:14:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> "C.H." > wrote in message >> news > >>> or is ABS ok after all as long as it is not from Chevy? >> >> To refresh your memory...I can tolerate ABS on any car, but prefer not >> having it. You're confusing ABS with another well know topic that I >> actually can't tolerate. I'm beginning to worry about you Chris! >> Keeping >> different subjects "compartmentalized" is a tough nut for you, it >> appears. > > On the contrary, I find it highly hilarious how you are trying to keep > your little world of prejudices, misinformation and hatred when it is > prodded from different directions. Only in your mind Chris. Most of it is made up in your head (but I'm sure you still believe it...which is fine). I do hate DRLs and auto light controls though...that is true. But then again, I'm sure that is already understood by everyone in this Newsgroup without you redundant comments stating the obvious. >>>> Why say stuff like that to/about people? >>> >>> Because unfortunately it is true. >>> >> Regardless if it is true or not...it doesn't answer the question. Why >> get >> personal and inflame people with those sorts of comments? Everyone >> (even >> you) have biases.. That is already understood by everyone. Pointing >> them >> out is redundant. > > No, it is not. Whether or not you have a bias against sausages for > breakfast indeed is not relevant for this discussion which is why I am not > talking about that. But an extreme bias against US-manufacturers and/or > specifically GM is quite relevant in this discussion. > How so when that is already clear to everyone else reading through the thread that people are commenting from the position of their preferences, likes, dislikes, biases. There isn't a need to discuss it. |
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 |