The Peckish Synapse

asilverblazer · 2026-07-29T17:34:32Z

3 hours ago, Atlas said:

I'm tangentially aware of what Harley used to be, back in my riding days, although I was into Italian sport bikes. Ducati seems to have gone the other way; still very expensive, but they've made a large subset of their bikes a lot more reliable and accessible, and they've diversified their lineup to include other riding sports too. IMO, a good example of where greed and growth might have also been beneficial to the consumer...

The Equinox ...I must be getting old. The ICE equinox is a great design IMO. Probably because it reminds me visually of an actual SUV aka an S Blazer. Underneath it's nothing even remotely close, but it LOOKS good. It's got all the modern features plus some at a very reasonable price. If I had to run out and buy myself a daily commuter to do everything except tow, an Equinox would be on my list...

There is a big difference in motorcycles and vehicles - nobody needs a motorcycle, they WANT one. That WANT is the most powerful force to drive price upwards.

I've hated every iteration of the Equinox, a prime example of GM laziness. It excelled at absolutely nothing, barely competitive by every metric. At least the latest generation looks decent.

I want to like the Buick Envista, but that pitiful engine plus FWD only is a BIG NO for me, I don't care how good it looks.

Atlas · 2026-07-29T17:59:50Z

14 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

There is a big difference in motorcycles and vehicles - nobody needs a motorcycle, they WANT one. That WANT is the most powerful force to drive price upwards.

I've hated every iteration of the Equinox, a prime example of GM laziness. It excelled at absolutely nothing, barely competitive by every metric. At least the latest generation looks decent.

I want to like the Buick Envista, but that pitiful engine plus FWD only is a BIG NO for me, I don't care how good it looks.

I can't get enthusiastic about the 1.5T (or the 1.3 or the 1.2), I won't drive a CVT. But the stupid things sell in volume.

asilverblazer · 2026-07-29T18:09:24Z

1 minute ago, Atlas said:

For as much hate as Ms. Barra receives on here, she sure is a shrewd businesswoman....

Mediocre, how much did they lose on the poorly conceived EV strategy?

I wonder how much the stock price is being 'inflated' by all the buy-backs?

Cadillac literally looks like a brand without a rudder, no clear goals or product direction - performance or luxury? I guess performance because we can throw a small block in whatever we can and call it a day. Certainly not luxury when a Denali or High Country is reasonably cross shoppable. The Celestiq - no way - no vehicle can command quarter million prices when something wearing the same badge is on the buy here pay here lot across town.

Notice the 'base' Escalade doesn't even come with the 'leather-appointed' seating surfaces.

Hummer EV - fail

Silverado EV - fail

Sierra EV - fail

Bolt/Volt EV (The most successful EV cancelled, restarted, cancelled, whatever its current status it)

Hybrids - none

Sedans - none

Medium duty - not anymore

Minivan - none

Coupe - none

Convertible - none

CUVs - 20+/-

6.2 Recall that landed squarely on the GMs highest seller - and specifically the fattest margin higher trims of the Yukon, Escalade, et. al. The most critical product line they fumbled big time. In the Escalade segment, are those buyers forgiving GM for a bad engine and patiently waiting for the fixes and dealing with the headaches? Nope, they dump them and go straight to the other premium brands.

In the ENTIRE GM portfolio how many aspirational vehicles are there?

Corvette, Escalade (quickly being superseded by the obvious better value Denali)...

I posted somewhere else... what if Cadillac left the luxury game and became a performance brand similar to AMG or (gasp) Ferrari? Cut all the entry-level and base models from their line up and focus on the V-series or Blackwing or whatever they call it now. Of course, those would have the pre-requisite luxury and technology as standard equipment. This opens the floor for Buick to step in/up as the luxury brand (like they are in China), no 'performance pretenses' get rid of the 'entry-level' models with equally 'entry-level' power trains and become the Maybach to Cadillacs AMG. With those two brands effectively out of the way Chevrolet, the 'entry-level' brand has the floor to itself and GMC can take over as 'professional grade'.

Now each brand has a focus, no in-fighting, clear direction, and customer targets.

Just need to sneakily slide Corvette into the Cadillac brand and dump the vestigial script writing.

Atlas · 2026-07-30T02:38:13Z

There's some truth to the above, but also, she's selling fullsize trucks and bread/butter CUV's like hotcakes, meanwhile, extracting GM's pickups from the deep discounting sales game.

GM's stock has held its own during her tenure, and the more recent buybacks are delivering cash back to investors and signal confidence in their direction forward. Even with the EV losses.

GM is an example of a modern publicly traded company. The #1 goal of any publicly traded company is to deliver the most value possible to shareholders. Despite being a car company, building the best car isn't GM's path to delivering maximum shareholder value.

McDonalds doesn't make the best burger, or the best coffee.

I've mentioned in another thread, I really don't / won't ever understand Cadillac or Buick in a modern context. Both brands are completely dead to me. I'll cede that the Escalade is a nice SUV, but the brand and nameplate mean nothing to me, and GM will never persuade me to pay north of $170k for a gussied-up Tahoe or Burb. Other people don't mind doing that and that's their purview.

The C8 shares absolutely nothing in common with any other current Chevrolet or Corvette on the market. Since its introduction 8 years ago, it's developed quite the following. It did what other Corvettes couldn't do: reduce the average age of its buyer. GM has something there, and I see them investing in the car. They'd better not mess that up.

We've successfully derailed Grumpy's thread again, but I think this one is meant to be more of a random thought thread so a little wandering is probably OK.

diyer2 · 2026-07-30T15:19:00Z

She's laughing all the way to the bank.

asilverblazer · 2026-07-30T17:28:03Z

14 hours ago, Atlas said:

GM's stock has held its own during her tenure, and the more recent buybacks are delivering cash back to investors and signal confidence in their direction forward. Even with the EV losses.

GM is an example of a modern publicly traded company. The #1 goal of any publicly traded company is to deliver the most value possible to shareholders. Despite being a car company, building the best car isn't GM's path to delivering maximum shareholder value.

Agree 100% the buy backs are a prop to the stock price, in showing confidence, generating demand and thus inflating the price.

The problem is the over focus on the shareholders to the detriment of the customer - the customer will only take so much pressure before they switch brands - and rarely switch back. Eventually, no customers means no sales, what value to shareholders is there then?

Which leads back to the EV strategy, EVERYONE KNEW the EV customers didn't exist yet, but they went ahead anyway because the shareholders wanted it (Stock price increases at each press release), the release of the Hummer proved it (again, if you go back to the ELR coupe), but GM kept doggedly moving ahead with Cadillacs all electric future, Blazer EV, Equinox EV and again the ONLY EV with any kind of momentum was an on again off again mess. Further why was the success of the Volt/Bolt compared to the failure(s) of the Hummer/ELR not considered? Premium EVs weren't the answer. Cadillac is now in one of its weakest positions in decades, resurrecting aged platforms to rush back into a market the customers never left and are now searching other brands for.

These are OBVIOUS MISTAKES (plus many others outside EV) that cost BILLIONS, people should have been fired, likely many people.

GMs value as a brand to me exists only in what the assets could be sold for, because they obviously can't lead the industry.

Atlas · 2026-07-30T17:59:14Z

9 minutes ago, asilverblazer said:

Agree 100% the buy backs are a prop to the stock price, in showing confidence, generating demand and thus inflating the price.

The problem is the over focus on the shareholders to the detriment of the customer - the customer will only take so much pressure before they switch brands - and rarely switch back. Eventually, no customers means no sales, what value to shareholders is there then?

Which leads back to the EV strategy, EVERYONE KNEW the EV customers didn't exist yet, but they went ahead anyway because the shareholders wanted it (Stock price increases at each press release), the release of the Hummer proved it (again, if you go back to the ELR coupe), but GM kept doggedly moving ahead with Cadillacs all electric future, Blazer EV, Equinox EV and again the ONLY EV with any kind of momentum was an on again off again mess. Further why was the success of the Volt/Bolt compared to the failure(s) of the Hummer/ELR not considered? Premium EVs weren't the answer. Cadillac is now in one of its weakest positions in decades, resurrecting aged platforms to rush back into a market the customers never left and are now searching other brands for.

These are OBVIOUS MISTAKES (plus many others outside EV) that cost BILLIONS, people should have been fired, likely many people.

GMs value as a brand to me exists only in what the assets could be sold for, because they obviously can't lead the industry.

When most people look at GM's EV strategy, they think it was dumb. Obviously, duh?

In hindsight, there was significant financial risk in becoming obsolete if GM didn't go all-in, like a lot of automakers. Had the EV market taken off, GM would have been left defenseless.

Not all of their $10.9B was lost. Only a part of that was sunk costs like supplier penalties and retooling for EV's they canceled or never made.

A sizable chunk of that was R&D and intellectual property which is still in their back pocket for future EVs.

GM hedged the risk but overspent, but then they pivoted and focused on their bread and butter. Not only did GM still have the financial prowess to do that, they've done so successfully. It shows a lot of resilience and the market rewarded it.

Grumpy Bear · 2026-07-30T18:23:14Z

15 hours ago, Atlas said:

We've successfully derailed Grumpy's thread again, but I think this one is meant to be more of a random thought thread so a little wandering is probably OK.

It is, It is the purpose. Just ask that everyone plays nice

On another note. The Terrain and the Equinox are fraternal twins. The one we have is spitting distance from 300K and yes, it has been problematic. Oil consumption is inexcusable. That said, nearly everything else fell into the "Routine Maintenance" bucket or expected failure due to age or accident. The 2015 Generation are very comfortable and they drive dreamy. The six speed is a rockstar save for the cheap failure prone manual automatic physical switch in the shifter. I called it quits after three.

The Ecotec 2.4 I-4 sans the GDI pump junk is nearly bulletproof. The hardest thing we experienced with this SUV was rear wheel alignment. The back axle is a starter kit. Toe bolts need to be installed as do extended range camber bolts. Then you have to find someone not new to the planet that has the skill and patients for the horrendous task of dialing it in. But once set, it is rock solid.

The new ones....yea, I'll pass. I have one CVT and it is enough. They could be a good transmission but someone would have to really care designing it. Subaru seems to have it down fairly well.

Atlas · 2026-07-30T19:15:15Z

The new Equinox have the 1.5T. I'm not reading a whole lot of negative other than it's a smaller and less powerful engine than competitors in the segment. GM says bigger and faster isn't what customers want in this segment, they prefer better fuel economy. That's not what I want, but I'm also not their typical Equinox buyer. I see having multiple engine options as a good thing.

I was happy to see AWD models receive an 8-speed automatic. CVT exists for FWD only.

I remember when the "new" Equinox arrived in ~2010? It felt so modern compared to GM's other offerings, and that was a pretty dark time for GM emerging from BK.

newdude · 2026-07-30T20:10:21Z

55 minutes ago, Atlas said:

The new Equinox have the 1.5T. I'm not reading a whole lot of negative other than it's a smaller and less powerful engine than competitors in the segment. GM says bigger and faster isn't what customers want in this segment, they prefer better fuel economy. That's not what I want, but I'm also not their typical Equinox buyer. I see having multiple engine options as a good thing.

I was happy to see AWD models receive an 8-speed automatic. CVT exists for FWD only.

I remember when the "new" Equinox arrived in ~2010? It felt so modern compared to GM's other offerings, and that was a pretty dark time for GM emerging from BK.

Yea the 1.5T has been fairly stout. The one Achillies heal? The vacuum assist pump. Its driven off the end of the camshaft and is oil fed for lubrication. Clean oil is a MUST. If the pump fails and locks it can shear the cam end or cause the engine to jump time.

8 speed has some teething issues. First few months of production they had bad bolts holding the pump to the case and they'd leak ATF with like no miles on them.

Otherwise its electrical snafus. Telematics modules which are being addressed with updates, software snags, etc.

CVT is RIP for 2027 also. FWD and AWD go 8 speed only.

New 2010? Oh yea. Second year at work they were showing up. Was a breath of fresh air in terms of how they looked, how they felt (interior feel and quality). Time did not treat that generation well however, neither did bankruptcy. At all. The 3rd gen 2018 Equinox made up a LOT for where the 2nd gen faltered.

Edited 3 hours ago by newdude