Toyota Recall Update #2: GM Goes On the Attack

cruiserhead1

They already are....

http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/01/whitacre-to-stay-as-gm-ceo-loans-to-be-paid-back-in-june.html

Brutal, but honestly, GM's showroom is much more intersting than Toyota's right now. It could work to convince a few Toyotafiles to reconsider GM.

This looks just desperate. If potential customers were asking, a quiet campaign would've been a great idea. Trumpeting it like this after taking tax dollars isn't a great idea.

Ballsy move. Looks like arrogance hasn't been weeded out with the bailout.

May the Best Car win.

GM can try, but fearful Toyota owners will probably go to Subaru or Hyundai/Kia before darkening a Chevy or Buick doorstep.

Arrogance is right. It just seems so childish.

It does seem like a low blow. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that when Toyota was in its heyday they agreed not to lower the prices of its vehicles so as to not cannibalize GM's sales.

Also, GM have you forgotten about NUMMI already?

There's nothing unusual about this move. Competitive upgrades are commonplace.

I'm sure GM isn't far off from their next recall. If I were GM with the history they've had, I'd be awfully careful. Toyota doesn't appear to advertise below the belt, though.

This won't do squat for GM or Ford sales unless folks were already considering one. Toyota owners rarely if ever go back to Detroit.

canddmeyer-

One of my brothers-Former 4 Runner owner-engine head gasket at 70K and replacement engine at 125K-now Chevy Tahoe owner.

Other brother-Former Honda accord owner-now Cadillac CTS owner.

Brother in law-current Toyota owner, looking to buy GMC Acadia.

It's more common than you think.

"This looks just desperate. If potential customers were asking, a quiet campaign would've been a great idea. Trumpeting it like this after taking tax dollars isn't a great idea. "

Predictably foolish responses here. If you are in business to make money you have to be aggressive. How ridiculous is it to say GM is wrong for going after customers and then say they need to pay back taxpayers? Are you serious? GM can only go public if they improve the value of the company. How do you do that without selling more vehicles and gaining share? To say they should "get busy repaying taxpayers" by being timid and passive is utter stupidity.

"Toyota owners rarely if ever go back to Detroit."

And your proof of that is what? Newer Ford and GM models are conquesting many buyers. Not saying all are from Toyota, but I would wager there are more Toyota converts now than 10 or 20 years ago.

"I'm sure GM isn't far off from their next recall. If I were GM with the history they've had, I'd be awfully careful. Toyota doesn't appear to advertise below the belt, though."

I don't think GM is going to run ads blatantly going after Toyota owners. Besides, GM has been targeting Toyota in ads ever since Best car win started so its not like they are afraid to directly contrast their products with Toyota's. Toyota doesn't mention competitors because often they have no tangible advantages over competitors. Toyota advertises its reputation and hopes consumers are too stupid to actually do any research.

"It does seem like a low blow. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that when Toyota was in its heyday they agreed not to lower the prices of its vehicles so as to not cannibalize GM's sales."

Toyota does not care about GM or any other competitor. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. Every Toyota ad about quality is a veiled slap at American cars. Toyota's primary goal over the last decade or so has been to unseat GM as #1 in the world so let's not validate any nonsensical statements their execs have made about having mercy on Detroit. The mere suggestion that they were in a position to offer mercy reeks of arrogance.

@firstwagon,
Nothing is as straightforward as it seems...

"G.M. has already paid back $1 billion of the $6.7 billion that the United States lent the company as part of its broader G.M. rescue effort that totaled about $50 billion.
The bulk of the funds were converted into preferred shares and common stock in G.M."

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/to-attract-shoppers-gm-to-pay-debt-to-us/?scp=2&sq=gm%20loan&st=Search

""G.M. has already paid back $1 billion of the $6.7 billion that the United States lent the company as part of its broader G.M. rescue effort that totaled about $50 billion.
The bulk of the funds were converted into preferred shares and common stock in G.M.""

None of that is news. Point is you dont create value for the Treasury's stake in the company by not selling cars. Its common sense. If you are anxious for GM to allow Treasury to get out of this deal you should be hoping GM goes after Toyota and everyone else whenever possible. Besides, all Firstwagon said was that they had started paying back loans.

"Toyota owners rarely if ever go back to Detroit."

Until now.

I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a stab at Toyota for this. GM already attacks Honda in its tv spots, so they may as well highlight Toyota as well. The buying public is fickle, and GM should do what it takes to win back support. Its just business, nothing personal to other companies. Its like the "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" commercials - they may not be entirely truthful, but its brilliant marketing that has brainwashed plenty of people into a Mac.

Go for it, GM.

exactly doug, for years GM has been criticized for being inept and not taking the competition seriously enough- now they get aggressive and Americans are worried they might offend Toyota. What kind of sense does that make? Toyota's entire presence in the US market is based on exploiting real and perceived weaknesses in the offerings of US automakers. That's how they got established here and that's primarily how they managed to grow until 2008.

Gentlemen, I just had a conversation with a co-worker who bought an '09 Vibe who flatly stated that this whole fiasco does NOTHING for his (or his peers who own new Toyotas) trust in Toyota. He said he will continue to buy Toyota (or Toyota-engineered in the case of the Vibe) cars without nary a second glance.

And the reason he stated I agree with totally. He said, "This is nothing. We buy these cars for how they are going to run at 200,000+ miles. Try that with your Cobalt, HHR, Malibu, or Acadia. I am positive my car will be running great then while blah blah's Cobalt will have stopped running. My friends Toyotas have. From the 80's up on through. It's nothing."

A response from an all-american consumer. This is the same with everyone i talk too, my wife, friends, co-workers.... don't give me those "conquest" stats.... I live in the real world.

isaacl : "We buy these cars for how they are going to run at 200,000+ miles. Try that with your "

You may be correct, but it's a perception I don't fully understand. Domestic autos are generally durable. I've two domestic vehicles in my driveway. One is nearing the 200K mark and the other is well over the 100K mark. My parents vehicle is over the 200K mark. My neighbors vehicle is pushing 300K. All are domestic and all started this morning at -5F.

Cars are reliable. The perception that imports have some sort of monopoly on that is frustrating. In fact the only vehicle on my block that doesn't run well is an older Toyota. I chalk that up to an isolated case.

"This is nothing. We buy these cars for how they are going to run at 200,000+ miles. Try that with your Cobalt, HHR, Malibu, or Acadia. I am positive my car will be running great then while blah blah's Cobalt will have stopped running."

1994 Impala SS@ 246,000 mi.

I find it hilarious how Toyota owners are so arrogant as to think that their cars are the only ones that will last that long.

brn, all i have for my testament is MY PERSONAL AND REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE with both domestic and import vehicles. And those of my family.... and those of my friends.... and those of my co-workers.... and we all agree..... nobody defends domestic vehicles EVER. The only time i hear people touting the renewed quality of GM/Ford is online. Yeah, you will have the odd fellow who is still driving a Buick Lesabre with 200,000+ on the clock...or the guy with the old ass Chevy Silverado doing the same reliably...but these are very few exceptions my friend. I know people still driving thier 10 year old Corolla simply becuase its running just great. They have the means to buy a new car....but thiers just wont quit. It comes down to my own bias. Which there are factual reasons for.

To 1487's shock, I will be here to defend the Cobalt.
The interior of the car may make Tata Nanos look like the Phantom Drophead, but GM did a superb job in vehicular dynamics and drivetrain engineering. It is the best-driving cheap small car money can buy (Mazda 3 is a lot more money).
Cobalt may not be as durable as the Corolla or Civic, but they are so cheap to buy you can easily save the money for future repair. Also every yahoo down the block can fix a GM car, so it wouldn't even cost much to fix.
If I want a fast car without spending much the Cobalt SS would be my choice.

"None of that is news. Point is you dont create value for the Treasury's stake in the company by not selling cars. Its common sense. If you are anxious for GM to allow Treasury to get out of this deal you should be hoping GM goes after Toyota and everyone else whenever possible. Besides, all Firstwagon said was that they had started paying back loans. "

This is not news, but I would be totally dismayed if GM parades around with this tidbit in their marketing campaign.
Not dismayed by GM, but at Joe Blow who bought into this nonsense.

GT5000 are you serious? you are going to cite your corvette powered Impala? How much money have you had to put into that for maintanence & repairs? (besides tires, oil...etc etc)

Don't get me wrong....I'm super jealous.... i love those things( in fact, I had a soft spot for Caprices of the 90's too) but your example of your GM lasting forever is kind of a ringer.

@isaacl

Actually its been very reliable.
I've had to replace...

alternator@ 130,000 mi.
water pump@ 180,000 mi.

Other than that, I've had no problems with it. I don't plan on getting rid of it any time soon either.

Another typical, poorly thought-out or unthought foolish response from 1487. GM right now needs to convince buyers of their long-term viability. They still could have used the opportunity to agressively market to ALL potential customers while still having a quiet campaign to offer to inquiring Toyota buyers. But instead they've further pissed off the taxpayers who bailed out their finance arm, likely pissed off a large number of Toyota owners who weren't considering anything right now but might have considered GM in the future but now won't, pissed off a majority of shoppers who DON'T own a Toyota, a great number of whom DO own a GM car because they're not getting this deal, and made themselves look absolutely DESPERATE, whether they truly are or not. 1487, do you ever THINK about what you're saying or is your main goal just to have something to say?

Hmmm, while this may seem desperate to some, it is a way of taking advantage of the current situation. GM has already been sending the good/reliable/desirable car message for a while now in their ad campaigns, so that message is already played out to no end (time will tell if it's the truth). Why is it really so astonishing to think they would take this opportunity to make some more money? We live in a free market people, where money is king. GM could probably care less if they're number one or number two or number ten in sales. What matters is that they make MONEY! That they're profitable and viable in the long-term. They have to sell cars to do that. They already have a long term plan for marketing their cars on their merits. There is absolutely nothing wrong with also injecting a little current-events based incentives too to help short term sales, and you're just getting a little too morally and ethically self-righteous if you think this is wrong, especially for a corporation that is in the business of making money. Money is key here for GM, and they need to find every which way to make it now that they've shed all the obesity they've been strapped with for years.

And besides, while we all may have our opinions on here, only the market will tell if this plan will work, and GM will find out for itself if it's detrimental or helpful to sales to go after another manufacturer in this way. Why get mad at them for trying? We ALL want them to pay us back our money, right? Well how the hell else are they going to do it unless they sell cars?!

"And the reason he stated I agree with totally. He said, "This is nothing. We buy these cars for how they are going to run at 200,000+ miles. Try that with your Cobalt, HHR, Malibu, or Acadia. I am positive my car will be running great then while blah blah's Cobalt will have stopped running. My friends Toyotas have. From the 80's up on through. It's nothing."

Everyone knows die hard Toyota fans will support the brand no matter what. BTW, most people keep a car 5-6 years so this idea that folks only buy cars based on how they will fare over 200k miles is BS. I don't know one person with a car with that kind of mileage on it. But keep telling yourself this has no bearing on the company's reputation. Good luck with that fantasy.

"A response from an all-american consumer. This is the same with everyone i talk too, my wife, friends, co-workers.... don't give me those "conquest" stats.... I live in the real world. "

The fact that everyone you know drives a Toyota pretty much proves you are surrounded by Toyota fans that aren't likely to throw the company under the bus.

"The only time i hear people touting the renewed quality of GM/Ford is online. "

Does CR also count as "online" because they have been vouching for Ford quality for several years now? This is the same publication that religiously supports Japanese imports as reliable vehicles. You are obviously far from objective and as with most domestic car bashers you are incapable of leaving the quality rep of the 80s behind. It's 2010 sir- time to catch up with the times.

"GT5000 are you serious? you are going to cite your corvette powered Impala? How much money have you had to put into that for maintanence & repairs? (besides tires, oil...etc etc)"

You know what is funny? American cars were first to have many low maintenance features that are commonplace today. Timing chains that don't need replacing were common on American cars first. The 100k tuneup was common on GM vehicles before any Toyota or Honda. GM (along with MB) was the first to make real life oil monitoring available across the board. Coolant and transmission fluid that was made to last over 100k miles was on GM products years ago. I can't think of any examples in which a Japanese car pioneered a major advancement in lowering maintenance intervals or maintenance costs.

dg0472:

Your entire post was absurd to say the least. The idea that GM has now angered die hard Toyota fans that likely would've never purchased a GM product in the first place is laughable. Where did you read that GM was planning a major ad campaign built around Toyota's troubles? Oh right, you didn't. Spare me the dramatics. I would think "the taxpayer" would hardly be pissed about GM trying to be agressive and gain marketshare. Why would you be mad about them trying to add value to the company so they can have a successful IPO? Did you even try and reconcile the divergent points you made before posting?

" BTW, most people keep a car 5-6 years so this idea that folks only buy cars based on how they will fare over 200k miles is BS. I don't know one person with a car with that kind of mileage on it. But keep telling yourself this has no bearing on the company's reputation. Good luck with that fantasy. "

I know lots of people with over 200K (including both of my cars). Sure lots of people trade their cars every 5 or 6 years, it's a sure way to waste money and many people are clueless.

If it makes you feel better, I've had a couple GM products that lasted well past 200K.

isaacl

My REAL WORLD experience with imports is quite different than yours. I owned 4 Hondas, 2 cars and 2 motorcycles. I had a Civic that its engine blew up before 80K and an Accord that destroyed its transmission @ 72K. I also used to sell replacement engines to Toyota dealers, and I actually know that they had very serious issues with their V6 engines, as I also have a brother that needed a head gasket at 70K and a new engine at 120K. The "famous" 22R four cylinder engines also have a tendency of having the timing chain wearing a hole in the timing cover. Hell, I also owned a Fiat that had fewer major problems than the "quality" Asian brands.

Now compare that to my experince with domestic, I owned 1 83 Buick that gave a lot of trouble, but then I owned a Ford Ranger that had 300K + when I sold it and the only problem was with the MAZDA sourced manual transmission. 94 Lumnia APV-264K miles-no major problem. 94 Escort wagon 235K miles-no problem, even had original clutch. 05 Malibu Maxx 130K- no problem-only got rid of because I wanted a G8 GT.

I drive 35K miles a year and have been doing so for the last 25 years. I also work in the automotive aftermarket and have, over the years, represented companies that supply every OEM worldwide. I also contact repair shops on a DAILY basis, so I would venture to guess that I have more HARD DATA and FACTS than your buddies do. Toyota's are currently actually worse, reliability wise than the domestic manufacutrers, with the exception of Chrysler, of which I did own a D350 Turbo diesel with 285K miles.

"I know lots of people with over 200K (including both of my cars). Sure lots of people trade their cars every 5 or 6 years, it's a sure way to waste money and many people are clueless."

I dont know one person with that many miles on their car. I did have one friend who had a '95 civic (with a replaced engine) but he just got rid of it. The average American hold on to a new car 5-7 years. Few people drive the same car long enough to accumulate 200k miles. I never said buying a new car was a great financial investment.