islandbeef

My family has owned GM in the past also.

GM Marketing will have you believe things have changed but that's their job, to make you believe in something that may not be true.

GM quality sucks in my book, it doesn't matter how much faster the car is. Historically, the GM brand is inferior in quality, refinement, resale value and reliability compared to Lexus.

In this financial climate, I'd rather have my money go far for me than just throw it away on something that will fail me.

Besides, my tax dollars have already helped GM with their bailout money. They owe me.

SW17LS

To be fair to GM, what they are producing now really, truly is a total turnaround from what they were producing. They really are making some excellent cars now, cars I would not hesitate to buy...and I'm a tough critic that understands quality. The CTS is also an excellent, excellent car...its just lacking a little bit in the polish and details inside when compared to Lexus, BMW, MB & Audi. I would say its as good as an Infiniti or Acura...and thats REALLY saying something when you factor in where Cadillac was just 3 years ago. Huge improvements across the board.

Flying3

I leased a Chevy Cruze as an extra vehicle. Nice car for $20k.

SW17LS

It is, I would select a Chevy Cruze over most other economy cars right now.

jjscsix

I'm a tough critic as well, and I have ventured off into American cars a few times. I've owned a number of Chevy large SUV/ Trucks and Corvettes - vehicles where the American have little real competition. But I've also owned a few "sport sedans" built by GM and Ford that supposedly were going after the foreign cars and they have let me down in various ways. By and large the quality of the GM vehicles has been okay. I've owned several Fords that I liked for what they were at the time, but I had a lot more quality issues with them (keep in mind those have been 20 years ago plus/minus a few years).

Today my biggest concern with American cars is poor resale value. I don't like to keep a vehicle much more than two years, and I'm typically leasing the car I drive for myself. I have no confidence in American Resale value other than Corvettes, so I will only lease and that only happens if GM props up the residuals. And even then I have to hope that I'm not let down by the car as I was my 2008 CTS. Go read the road tests on that car when it came out 6-7 years ago and you read the same hype we are reading today about then new version.

"Nismo" said it quite well a few posts up. They always say they get it, but they don't understand they are shooting at a moving target. They DO get better, but so do the Japanese and Germans - and by that I'm not really referring to actual build quality, I'm referring to the driving experience and having the next generation of features that adds to the overall ownership experience.

SW17LS

I don't personally buy into the hype. I just look at the new CTS and compare it myself to the previous CTS and the improvement is significant. I also think about how the previous CTS compared to other cars at the time, and how it does now...also a significant improvement.

I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee and while I have had some quality problems, resale seems quite good...

They're getting there.

Sal Collaziano

It's been this way in the past but not such much in recent history. The second generation CTS is a competitive car inside and out. It isn't a bad car at all. It's not on par with the German and Japanese but it's not far off either. The third generation is now on the same level as the competition. I don't feel the new CTS is "better" than cars from Germany or Japan but it's on par. It is now a viable competitor in the segment - as is the Cadillac ATS.

The XTS is an impressive vehicle as well - especially considering it's just a stop gap until the new flagship arrives...

Nismo

I should have said there is no way I'd buy one in 2014 if reliability was a big concern. GM has improved by leaps and bounds. Of course, so has Hyundai, Kia, Ford, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, and Lexus, to name a few. These days, the disparity between a reliable car (e.g. Lexus) and a less reliable car (take your pick) is a lot smaller than it used to be. Nonetheless, there are still better cars and worse cars out there, and if it's my money we're talking about, I'd rather own the better car.

All that said, reliability isn't the only yardstick one can measure a car with. Otherwise, who would ever buy a Ferrari! To use that extreme example, Ferraris are not exactly known for their great reliability--quite the opposite in fact. However, if you can afford a new one, then you probably don't care all that much as you are buying a car that is top notch in just about every other way (and, like most other automakers, Ferrari has also improved their reliability quite a bit in recent decades).

jjscsix

I agree that they are getting there. But the marketing lesson is how hard it is to win back customers after years of letting them down. I've probably tried more than most to give them a chance. I went out on a limb and bought a Pontiac 6000 STE in 1984, a Taurus LX in 87, a Thunderbird SC in 90 a Ford Taurus SHO in 83. and a CTS in 08. These in addition to the Tahoes, Corvettes and Pickup Trucks I've owned. But I always gravitate back to the Japanese. My BMW is my first German (bought the same year as I bought my first German motorcycle btw).

SW17LS

Its not as hard as you may think. Look at Hyundai, and GM is doing very well. Look at Chrysler, especially Jeep.

A lot of Americans WANT to like these brands...if they build a couple of generations of excellent products and get a good 5 year dependability history, the buyer will be there.

Afrosheen

What's really impossible is changing a brand's image. Corvettes are for white-haired or balding dudes in their 50's, full stop. Buicks are your grandpa's car. Somehow Cadillac managed to pull it off but I think alot of it had to do with their radical design direction. No old fogeys wanted origami design so they bought an ES instead, or a Buick of course.

SW17LS

I completely disagree. Brand image is very controllable. I can name several manufacturers who have done a great job changing the course of their brand image, Lexus for one is in the process of doing that right now. Cadillac has been very successful. Hyundai, Kia, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Jeep, even Buick has positioned themselves differently with a lot of success. As each generation goes by the next generation doesn't have the hangups of the generation before them and it gets easier. If we go outside the auto world and look at brands that have reinvented their image, there are plenty. Apple, Samsung, Coach, Tumi just very off the top of my mind.

Afrosheen

Buick, as of an article from last March, isn't doing well at all, lagging behind average US sales and with an older buyer than other marques.

I agree that Hyundai and Kia have had success but they're addressing a young market with low budget products and some midrange features, which is hitting the sweet spot for the 20-something college kids. They're scavenging Honda and Toyota customers that are tired of "good enough" design and beating them on value proposition as their reliability has improved and prices have dropped. Still, Hyundai and Kia still have some catching up to do in the QA department, as the sunroofs on Kias tend to explode and shatter without provocation. Sorento, Sportage, Optima, you name it, they raise the roof.

Apple never had an image problem; they've always been a niche brand for those with fat wallets as an alternative to boring beige PC's, although since about the second or third generation iPhone they've become more of a widespread luxury brand. The iPhone has been the gateway drug for them, turning PC owners into Mac owners with the message of "if my phone can do all this, I want my PC to be like this too". The iPad has also helped spur adoption across the range.

I don't remember Samsung having an image problem, as far as I know they've always made decent products and still slightly disappoint with cheap-feeling plastics on their flagship phones, but their TV's are good.

If you want to talk miraculous image turnarounds, I'd like to see Lincoln getting 30-somethings into showrooms. They need to steal some pages from Cadillac or get shuttered.

I get the feeling you and I just won't see eye to eye on anything based on a few exchanges here, and I'm comfortable with that. It's always interesting to see the other side of the debate.

SW17LS

First of all...last March is a year ago. Thats an eternity in the automobile industry. In any event, they've gone from an average age of 66 to an average age of 57...thats a huge accomplishment. Their buyer will always be older than "average" because thats the buyer they're really targeting.

As for "lagging behind average sales" what does that even mean? Every marque is going to have their own sales targets and goals, its not a zero sum game. Comparing the sales of one brand to another doesn't really always tell you much.

Theres so much wrong here:

1. While Hyundai and Kia are addressing a young market, that is certainly not even their focus..especially Hyundai. What are the two big releases from Hyundai and Kia right now? The K900 for Kia, which is a large $60,000+ luxury car, and the Genesis, which is a midrange near-luxury/luxury car. Neither car is aimed at a "20 something college kid". The next big thing for Hyundai is the Sonata, which is a family sedan not something for 20 something college kids. Before that it was the Santa Fe 5 and then 7 passenger. Same thing. I see no evidence at all that young markets are even a primary focus for Hyundai/Kia right now.

2. Yes Hyundai and Kia currently beat Toyota and Honda on value proposition, but the gap is narrowing, not widening. As time goes on Hyundai and Kia prices are RISING, not dropping. As their reputation improves they're nudging prices up. Eventually they'll be seen as peers to Toyota and Honda and the price chasm will have evaporated.

Search on CL for "exploding sunroof"...plenty of threads. Guy in the GX forum just had his rear window on a GX with 300 miles on it explode in a parking lot. There's security camera footage. That happens with all brands, its one of the drawbacks of tempered glass.

Again, this is really not the case. By the mid 1990s Apple had become a company that had a reputation for building overpriced, incompatible computers and was in a terrible state financially. The company was very close to going under.

When Steve Jobs came back to Apple and started re-imagining the company, he took them from the point of being seen as an "overpriced" computer supplier, to a company that had a very expensive product that people wanted to have and be seen having. Its an entirely different thing. Apple really had three game changers, long before the iPhone, the Apple stores, the original iMac, and the original iPod. The Apple store provided a dramatic showcase for them to present Apple products as the pinnacle of design and execution. Nobody else did anything like that. The iMac brought to the computer industry the computer as an object of desire and style. The iPod and subsequently iTunes revolutionized the music industry and completely changed how we as consumers consume music. The iPhone could not have existed without the iPod or iTunes, same with the iPad. Apple's brand re-invention was WELL underway before the iPhone was even conceived of. If anything, Apple is one of the most successful examples of brand re-engineering we've seen.

I'm not sure how old you are, but there was a time when Samsung was an economy brand. Before phones and TVs. They've reinvented themselves and have positioned themselves as a leader in smart phones, especially TVs, appliances, etc. Huge turnaround.

Lincoln has a lot of problems, one of those problems is just poor product. In order to re-imagine your brand and lure in more style conscious buyers the first step is to offer great products people want to buy...and Lincoln just doesn't do that. I personally think its too late for Lincoln.

There's an old saying, "someone with experience is not at the mercy of someone with an opinion". Thats not meant to be a dig at you, but from our exchanges here it seems pretty clear to me that you haven't spent a lot of time reading about and doing research into business concepts or the history of a lot of these companies we've talked about. Thats okay, we all have different focuses in our lives. However, I have spent many years in the business world and I've spent many years following these companies, their markets, what they've done and what the results have been...its an interest of mine both professionally and personally. When I see things that are just plain incorrect being put out there...like Apple never had an image problem, or that Hyundai's main focus is on college 20 somethings, or that Buick is not doing well because they've taken their average age from 66 to 57 but the average is still 52...I've got to present the other side of things.

leavehard

lol... talk about an intarwebz beatdown.