Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Wharton, West Virginia

Wharton, WV Car Consumer Discussions

Re: S2000 Cosmetic Defect - Bumps on dashboard [mprasad]

by 06s2k on Sun Mar 25 05:43:40 PDT 2007

I bought a 06 s2000 in August. In Houston. It has the same dash issues you describe. It has not gotten any worse. I have not gone to the dealer about it. I would be interested to hear if anyone has been able to get this problem fixed.

Today's Financial Times Article

by blckislandguy on Sat Mar 10 17:13:23 PST 2007

There is a nice article in today's Financial Times. You know, the daily paper that comes out in pink colored paper that is slowly overtaking the WSJ. Your dealer principal's sons already read it at Wharton. Their Dad will pick it up a year of two from now. You have to know two and only two things to be a sucessful investor. The price of something and the worth of something. This investment principle could be extended to all business transactions. As a side note, look at Lexus vs. BMW or Caddy. There are very few Lexus stores and each one is strong and sells far more cars for far more GP than the BMW or Caddy store that are on each corner. Yet, which brand has the highest consumer acceptance? The K Mart sells far more suits for less money than Brooks Bros. Which store has more loyal customers?

Re: Jobs bank [brightness04]

by socala4 on Sun Mar 19 20:21:23 PST 2006

GM negotiated to acquire FIAT for less than $8 billion over all at a time when GM market cap was over $60 billion. Hate to tell you, but one thing that any MBA knows is that a company's market cap is not based on how what kind of resources that I have available to pay for it. Strike one. FIAT's expertise was in design and making small cars, both areas that you so vehemently advised GM putting more effort towards only a few posts ago. Wrong again. Companies such as Toyota and Honda have expertise in building small cars. FIAT had a reputation of building unreliable product, and selling it at a loss. Strike two. It's ludicrous to claim that all M&A are bad I never said this. I pointed out that (a) Wharton shows that 70% of M&A deals don't work and that (b) M&A deals tend to fail when the acquired company lacks fundamentals that can create revenue (i.e. good products or a good brand). A company with good products but with inefficient cost structures can be turned around, but a company that doesn't have the brands needed to create revenue is not likely easy to turnaround. Funny how Toyota figured out the solution -- build good brands organically, and differentiate them. Buying bad brands carries more baggage and liability than value. (After all, that's why they're bad brands.) Strike three...so why isn't the management team out?

Re: Jobs bank [brightness04]

by socala4 on Sun Mar 19 18:44:39 PST 2006

I just wonder if this some sort of PR exercise for you, because you seem to rationalize every mistake made at the management level, irrespective of how horrendous or obvious that mistake may be. The fact that BMW botched the Rover acquisition is irrelevant. As Wharton and I have already pointed out here, most M&A deals don't work. They especially don't work when the acquired company's main problem is the absence of a decent product lineup. M&A turnaround deals can work well if the company has good products, but suffers from poor cost controls -- in those cases, you make the acquired firm more efficient, and continue to sell the products that customers want, turning those losses into profits. Again, cost controls can reduce hemorraging, but they can't make a bad company good. FIAT was in trouble before GM invested in it, it continued to be bad while GM owned it, and GM then had to make an exit payment to avoid getting even deeper into it. Step back and accept the facts -- GM management negotiated a costly provision that forced it to make a payment to avoid taking over the whole of FIAT. Wagoner and his boss both cut this deal. Hence, GM management, including Wagoner, are responsible for losing $4 billion on this deal alone, and they lost it in near-record time. I don't see why Wagoner (who was president of the company) thought that GM could succeed in undertaking an activity -- buying a money loser with poor products and a weak brand -- that others have failed with, time and time again. Part of the logic behind the case study method pioneered by Wagoner's alma mater HBS is to study others who have come before you, and to learn from their mistakes. He did not learn from this mistake, and it cost the company, its shareholders and employees $4 billion. To defend such stupidity is absolutely shameful, and shows you to be so blind in your hate of unions that you wouldn't know a bad management team if it kicked you in the head. For a fraction of the $4 billion squandered on FIAT, Wagoner could have consolidated existing brands and reduced the number of nameplates to a more manageable level, using the money saved to improve product quality, create meaningful differentiation, and deploy its marketing and R&D dollars more effectively. If GM made products people wanted, there wouldn't be excess inventories to the degree there are now, it's the cumbersome lineup and the obsolete distribution channels that create the burden.

Re: Jobs bank [brightness04]

by socala4 on Sat Mar 18 20:12:30 PST 2006

I pointed out that I'm actually quite reluctant to use the term "commie" against anyone. Sure. Instead, you fling about hollow adjectives such as "socialist paradise" and compare other posters to Marx (not Groucho). Sounds like something Tailgunner Joe would have done. Of course the management makes mistakes from time to time. Just as I expected, your sole example consists of something for which you'd blame the union. How insightful. How's this for a start -- Wharton has documented that 70% of M&A deals destroy shareholder value, and yet this is a strategy that GM has pursued. Not surprisingly, it has lost a lot of money doing it. Since Wagoner went to HBS, I'm surprised he never read a case study or two that would have taught him this, and that he might have been inspired to build some brands organically, rather than buying up second rate players that create more liability than benefit. Here's another -- too many products, including many that customers don't want. Any reason why the company has opted to design and produce products that customers wouldn't want, when it should have produced products that customers do want? I thought it was the job of management to figure out what customer needs could be met, and then meet those needs. (Since you referenced entrepreneurship before, you should know that this same dictum applies to the Fortune 100 as well.) While makers such as Toyota launch successful small cars, the current GM strategy seems based upon selling large vehicles that use a lot of fuel. Is that forward thinking? Innovative? Creative? Then I look at Automotive News, and I see that GM carries an average of 90 days worth of inventory, versus Honda and Toyota that carry 49 and 41 days, respectively. Is that lack of inventory management skills evident at the General a sign of quality management? Would you not agree that a company that is losing money that ties up its money in excess inventories (an indication that it is incapable of selling the stuff that it makes) something that should inspire shareholder confidence?

Re: Marketing [hungarian83]

by bostonjazz on Thu Feb 09 12:43:02 PST 2006

There's no away around it: the U.S. site is just BAD, to the point of - and this is the problem - being potentially ALIENATING to a wide range of consumers. There are ways to position things to multiple audiences at once, and ways to hone in on one demographic categories' preferences... I just can't for the life of me figure out what kind of consumer old enough to drive would really print out stickers on their computer for the car, or almost any product for that matter. Make your own stickers? Video game graphics? Choppy "lost-in-translation" English phrases as taglines? I do wonder if it relates to the very unique approach of that EdVenture Partners company "let's have college students design the campaign." I *think* that relates only to on-campus marketing of the Fit, building viral awareness at their school. Here's a syllabus at Penn's Wharton school that offers some more detail on the "Honda Fit Marketing Challenge" - http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/programs/syllabus-pdf/Spring2006/MKTG%20235-0- 2-Williams-Spring2006.pdf We could go on and on, but I just think it's comical, and as some others have noted, almost "insulting" to a mature adult who has viewed themselves as a Honda Fit evangelist, champion, and early adopter. I have introduced this vehicle to at least 50 family and friends, and no doubt they have in turn told more about it. But, the marketing could turn off a fair percentage of that audience. Sure, the Scion site - and the whole brand - is a bit too far to the "hip" end of the spectrum for me, but I recognize that, and I can at least comfortably gather information about the brand and its products. The Fit site just strikes me as not serious - but maybe that will change once the car is available, pricing is available, and it's actually rolled out. I think it's that many of us want to see the Fit succeed, grow, and evolve, because we like its core value proposition and recognize how unique it is - but we feel Honda has made a grave strategic error in mispositioning it (at least to date) as a vehicle for tweens to aspire to. Like I've said, I don't doubt that can or will change over time. I'm still buying the car, but for what it's worth, scratching my head on the marketing.