In article <yfIxg.17744$pu3.351347@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
"Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> Aren't Impalas fuel efficient cars? Here in Canada, they are rated at around
> 40MPG.
> BTW, if you think it's too optimistic, remember that Canadian and US gallons
> are different.
They will get that on highway driving.
In urban driving their milage reflects their weight and engine size, the
same as similar competition.

 

In article <yfIxg.17744$pu3.351347@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
"Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> Aren't Impalas fuel efficient cars? Here in Canada, they are rated at around
> 40MPG.
> BTW, if you think it's too optimistic, remember that Canadian and US gallons
> are different.
They will get that on highway driving.
In urban driving their milage reflects their weight and engine size, the
same as similar competition.

 

jg wrote:
> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart
>>
>>Foreign cars pass Big 3
>>
>
> .............
>
>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>
>
> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
>

It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years
none of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they
compete in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's
investment into it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has
never once in that time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car
categories. It even gave up on the mid-size car class all together when
the Contour failed to meet sales expectations.

GM has the problem of too many brand as well. At any given time GM is
busy investing in one or two of it's brands while the other languish.

If you can't be one of the best in category, then you shouldn't bother
playing. However, if you are one of the top three vehicle makers in the
world then you need to play in a big way in every significant segment.
Toyota does so. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not.

Honda takes another tact. Honda knows it is not one of the biggest, so
they rifle shoot at markets where they feel they can place extremely
competitive products. Consequently, Honda's hit rate is much higher
than any of the US makers enjoy. Every one of Honda's present US
offerings consistently lands among the best-in-class ratings visa-vis
competitors. GM and Ford are lucky if they land one or two vehicles on
such lists.

John


John

 

jg wrote:
> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart
>>
>>Foreign cars pass Big 3
>>
>
> .............
>
>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>
>
> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
>

It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years
none of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they
compete in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's
investment into it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has
never once in that time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car
categories. It even gave up on the mid-size car class all together when
the Contour failed to meet sales expectations.

GM has the problem of too many brand as well. At any given time GM is
busy investing in one or two of it's brands while the other languish.

If you can't be one of the best in category, then you shouldn't bother
playing. However, if you are one of the top three vehicle makers in the
world then you need to play in a big way in every significant segment.
Toyota does so. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not.

Honda takes another tact. Honda knows it is not one of the biggest, so
they rifle shoot at markets where they feel they can place extremely
competitive products. Consequently, Honda's hit rate is much higher
than any of the US makers enjoy. Every one of Honda's present US
offerings consistently lands among the best-in-class ratings visa-vis
competitors. GM and Ford are lucky if they land one or two vehicles on
such lists.

John


John

 

jg wrote:
> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart
>>
>>Foreign cars pass Big 3
>>
>
> .............
>
>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>
>
> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
>

It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years
none of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they
compete in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's
investment into it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has
never once in that time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car
categories. It even gave up on the mid-size car class all together when
the Contour failed to meet sales expectations.

GM has the problem of too many brand as well. At any given time GM is
busy investing in one or two of it's brands while the other languish.

If you can't be one of the best in category, then you shouldn't bother
playing. However, if you are one of the top three vehicle makers in the
world then you need to play in a big way in every significant segment.
Toyota does so. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not.

Honda takes another tact. Honda knows it is not one of the biggest, so
they rifle shoot at markets where they feel they can place extremely
competitive products. Consequently, Honda's hit rate is much higher
than any of the US makers enjoy. Every one of Honda's present US
offerings consistently lands among the best-in-class ratings visa-vis
competitors. GM and Ford are lucky if they land one or two vehicles on
such lists.

John


John

 

jg wrote:
> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...plate=printart
>>
>>Foreign cars pass Big 3
>>
>
> .............
>
>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>
>
> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
>

It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years
none of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they
compete in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's
investment into it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has
never once in that time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car
categories. It even gave up on the mid-size car class all together when
the Contour failed to meet sales expectations.

GM has the problem of too many brand as well. At any given time GM is
busy investing in one or two of it's brands while the other languish.

If you can't be one of the best in category, then you shouldn't bother
playing. However, if you are one of the top three vehicle makers in the
world then you need to play in a big way in every significant segment.
Toyota does so. GM, Ford and Chrysler do not.

Honda takes another tact. Honda knows it is not one of the biggest, so
they rifle shoot at markets where they feel they can place extremely
competitive products. Consequently, Honda's hit rate is much higher
than any of the US makers enjoy. Every one of Honda's present US
offerings consistently lands among the best-in-class ratings visa-vis
competitors. GM and Ford are lucky if they land one or two vehicles on
such lists.

John


John

 

jg wrote:

>
> It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
> they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
> scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
> what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
> not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
> just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
> either.
>
>

BMW's strategy is in many ways similar to Hondas in that in the
categories BMW chooses to compete in it regularly builds one of the best
in class vehicles out there. By best in class I do not necessarily mean
top selling. However, usually best in class vehicles also end up being
amongst the top sellers in the class.

John

 

jg wrote:

>
> It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
> they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
> scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
> what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
> not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
> just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
> either.
>
>

BMW's strategy is in many ways similar to Hondas in that in the
categories BMW chooses to compete in it regularly builds one of the best
in class vehicles out there. By best in class I do not necessarily mean
top selling. However, usually best in class vehicles also end up being
amongst the top sellers in the class.

John

 

jg wrote:

>
> It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
> they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
> scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
> what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
> not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
> just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
> either.
>
>

BMW's strategy is in many ways similar to Hondas in that in the
categories BMW chooses to compete in it regularly builds one of the best
in class vehicles out there. By best in class I do not necessarily mean
top selling. However, usually best in class vehicles also end up being
amongst the top sellers in the class.

John

 

jg wrote:

>
> It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
> they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
> scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
> what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
> not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
> just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
> either.
>
>

BMW's strategy is in many ways similar to Hondas in that in the
categories BMW chooses to compete in it regularly builds one of the best
in class vehicles out there. By best in class I do not necessarily mean
top selling. However, usually best in class vehicles also end up being
amongst the top sellers in the class.

John

 

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PG8yg.16808$2u4.1533@trnddc06...
> jg wrote:
>> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
>> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>>
>>
>> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
>> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
> It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
> of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years none
> of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they compete
> in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's investment into
> it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has never once in that
> time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car categories. It even
> gave up on the mid-size car class all together when the Contour failed to
> meet sales expectations.
>
It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
either.

 

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PG8yg.16808$2u4.1533@trnddc06...
> jg wrote:
>> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
>> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>>
>>
>> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
>> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
> It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
> of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years none
> of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they compete
> in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's investment into
> it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has never once in that
> time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car categories. It even
> gave up on the mid-size car class all together when the Contour failed to
> meet sales expectations.
>
It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
either.

 

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PG8yg.16808$2u4.1533@trnddc06...
> jg wrote:
>> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
>> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>>
>>
>> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
>> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
> It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
> of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years none
> of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they compete
> in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's investment into
> it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has never once in that
> time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car categories. It even
> gave up on the mid-size car class all together when the Contour failed to
> meet sales expectations.
>
It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
either.

 

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PG8yg.16808$2u4.1533@trnddc06...
> jg wrote:
>> "dbltap" <DoubleTap@37.com> wrote in message
>> news:G0Bxg.3225$gF6.1123@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>>"The trick for the domestic automakers is going to be that they need to
>>> development dollars across every development segment in which they
>>>want to compete, and that includes cars and trucks," Wardlaw said.
>>>
>>
>> Even including cars & trucks huh? Observations like that one from an
>> "expert" might give some insight into why they are losing ground.
>
> It seems like an oxymoron, yet isn't when you consider the product lines
> of GM, Ford and Chrysler. At any given time over the past 10 years none
> of them have had compelling products in all of the markets they compete
> in. Ford, for example, had put the vast majority of it's investment into
> it's trucks and SUVs over the past 1-2 decades and has never once in that
> time fielded top class vehicles in each of the car categories. It even
> gave up on the mid-size car class all together when the Contour failed to
> meet sales expectations.
>
It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell more
they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position on the
scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's profit on
what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan that they are
not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives to you & I who
just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't necessarily drive us
either.

 

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Hbayg.32135$aW2.24884@trnddc03...
> jg wrote:
>
>>
>> It sounds to me like stating the bleedin obvious. If they want to sell
>> more they have to get more attractive (not just in looks), otoh position
>> on the scoreboard might not have been their prime concern. Maybe it's
>> profit on what they did sell... probably doesn't bother BMW or Morgan
>> that they are not top of the sales tree. They have different objectives
>> to you & I who just want a good car. And what sells the most doesn't
>> necessarily drive us either.
> BMW's strategy is in many ways similar to Hondas in that in the categories
> BMW chooses to compete in it regularly builds one of the best in class
> vehicles out there. By best in class I do not necessarily mean top
> selling. However, usually best in class vehicles also end up being
> amongst the top sellers in the class.
>
Depends which magazine you read. But something other than sales volume being
their prime objective in the past, is about the only way the comment about
ing development dollars across cars & trucks... makes sense. (and I
don't think it makes sense - they always need to spend development dollars)