GM believes it owns the name - "Judge" - Page 2 - PY Online Forums

HUMBLER · #21 10-21-2003, 12:10 PM

Yeah, didn't he say "all hail the judge" in the commercial instead?

Never had a problem with using the GTO name, feel the car deserves it and the GTO name has been so widely used. The Judge, however, seems more sacred and I'd be happy if they didn't use it.

"Daddy, are we going to the gentleman's club?" My 3 year old, the other day...I have no idea!?

ray t · #22 10-21-2003, 12:34 PM

Humber, I agree. I'd hate to see two sacred names dragged through the mud if the new GTO doesn't fly. Leave da judge alone. Sacred turf.

Ford has dredged the Mustang barrel for every possible nameplate to attach as a "Special Edition"...Mach 1's, GT's, Bullitts, Boss, Cobra...surprised they haven't used the Cobra II badge yet. All these special editions do is, in my opinion, water down the program. Build a fast car and the nameplate will sell itself.

Don't forget what GM did to the LeMans in the late 80's. Not quite the same situation, but it would take a miracle for GM to ever successfully sell a LeMans again!f

Brian Baker · #23 10-21-2003, 12:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by humbler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Once again, GM is getting busted in the nuts, only this time they're doing the kicking themselves. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so?

"Daddy, are we going to the gentleman's club?" My 3 year old, the other day...I have no idea!?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reread my very first reply to this thread.

HUMBLER · #24 10-21-2003, 01:37 PM

Getting kicked in the nuts by keeping some of those billion tuner dollars in the family?

GM doesn't have the talent to create a Firehawk? Please, the only reason they didn't do so then is like you say they didn't want to. Didn't need to actually, had a Formula and a TA. What was the mark up on the Firehawk? Now maybe they do and I say go for it. Just don't call it a Judge.

KEVGTO · #25 10-21-2003, 01:47 PM

orig. posted by humbler:

GM never wanted to so how can you say "couldn't?" Let's see, market a car towards a "few" enthusiasts or the performance oriented masses? Glad they are all idiots because it is a no brainer.

Just what do you justify as a "few" enthusiast..lol The performance oriented masses and enthusiast's is all the same in my book.

_________________
"if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." Bob Dylan

Brian Baker · #26 10-21-2003, 01:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by humbler:
Getting kicked in the nuts by keeping some of those billion tuner dollars in the family?

GM doesn't have the talent to create a Firehawk? Please, the only reason they didn't do so then is like you say they didn't want to. Didn't need to actually, had a Formula and a TA. What was the mark up on the Firehawk? Now maybe they do and I say go for it. Just don't call it a Judge.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You lost me on your first sentence. What are you trying to say?

Regarding your second paragraph: I never said they didn't have the talent to create the Firehawk. On the contrary, I believe they do, and then some. Why they let it be outsourced through SLP could be for a myriad of reasons, but I think the 2 primary ones are that it would interfere with any performance exercise being conducted by Chevrolet (ie - steal some "thunder" from the Corvette) and it probably wouldn't be cost effective to build such a car on a limited basis.

HUMBLER · #27 10-22-2003, 04:13 AM

Right, you didn't say they couldn't, my apologies. All I'm saying is they didn't see a market for tuning back then so they are making a decision to tune in house because there is a market and its a bazillion dollar industry.

As far as the getting kicked in the nuts part, GM is making business decisions that seem to make them successful even though forming a few disgrunteled enthusiasts. I still don't understand how they are getting kicked in the nuts and who is doing the kicking.

HUMBLER · #28 10-22-2003, 04:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by KEVGTO:
orig. posted by humbler:

GM never wanted to so how can you say "couldn't?" Let's see, market a car towards a "few" enthusiasts or the performance oriented masses? Glad they are all idiots because it is a no brainer.

Just what do you justify as a "few" enthusiast..lol The performance oriented masses and enthusiast's is all the same in my book.

_________________
"if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." Bob Dylan <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't?

Add GTO in front of enthusiasts, that "should" clear it up.

KEVGTO · #29 10-22-2003, 07:30 AM

do what?

_________________
"if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." Bob Dylan

Brian Baker · #30 10-22-2003, 07:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by humbler:
Right, you didn't say they couldn't, my apologies. All I'm saying is they didn't see a market for tuning back then so they are making a decision to tune in house because there is a market and its a bazillion dollar industry.

As far as the getting kicked in the nuts part, GM is making business decisions that seem to make them successful even though forming a few disgrunteled enthusiasts. I still don't understand how they are getting kicked in the nuts and who is doing the kicking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're so successful that they ceased production of a car that's been around since 1967, not because it wasn't selling, but because it wasn't selling as well as their competitors.

They're so successful they've spent tens of millions of dollars (possibly more) trying to salvage a minivan that is so f@$king ugly nobody will buy it, even after the facelift.

They're so successful they can't figure out that refining retro' styling so that it looks retro' while still appearing "new" sells cars. Look at the Mustang since 1995.

Ford is doing most of the nutcracking. They truly did win the ponycar war. The design stylists at Ford really have their ***** together. I can't say the same for GM.

Brian Baker · #31 10-22-2003, 07:45 AM

And if I never see another Cadillac commercial with some annoying looking yuppies or dinks (double income no kids) with John Bonham pounding out the intro' to "Rock and Roll" in the background, it will be too soon. Does this commercial reach out to anybody? It certainly doesn't to me.

KandRGTO · #32 10-22-2003, 07:46 AM

What Brian said!

There are old pilots and bold pilots;but there are no old,bold pilots!

MoJo · #33 10-22-2003, 08:09 AM

Yes the Caddy commercial is annoying. It's also ugly. (the car)

"Experience is a good teacher but her fees are high... "

HUMBLER · #34 10-22-2003, 08:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
They're so successful that they ceased production of a car that's been around since 1967, not because it wasn't selling, but because it wasn't selling as well as their competitors.

They're so successful they've spent tens of millions of dollars (possibly more) trying to salvage a minivan that is so f@$king ugly nobody will buy it, even after the facelift.

They're so successful they can't figure out that refining retro' styling so that it looks retro' while still appearing "new" sells cars. Look at the Mustang since 1995.

Ford is doing most of the nutcracking. They truly did win the ponycar war. The design stylists at Ford really have their ***** together. I can't say the same for GM.

http://kurtspontiac.homestead.com/files/bbaker.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll give you the camaro / firebird, they should've fixed it not stopped it.

The Aztek had successfull ownership satisfaction, it wasn't enough so they are axing it. Makes sense.

The Mustang is not retro, it has evolved to what it is today. It's a Mustang, the new concept was all retro but that isn't what they are producing. PT Cruiser, Thunderbird, both dying slow deaths ARE retro. Hence the non retro GTO. Makes sense.

Hmm Ford? T-Bird, Blackwood, Taurus, yeah they are kicking but. I'll give you the F150, GT and the new Mustang will sell but that's it.

GM is equally kicking butt design in my mind. Vette, CTS, all Caddilac for that matter! The Malibu is ugly but is an Accord / Camry killer if People are willing to give it a chance. On and On...

SuperQuad · #35 10-22-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Mojo:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Yes the Caddy commercial is annoying. It's also ugly. (the car)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God someone has finally said it! I hear alot of praise for this dorkmobile CTS and other new Caddies. They look like s**t! They were obviously drawn up by someone with a new ruler! -And yes, those commercials are stupid!! The new Malibu is fugly they last one wasn't a bad looking family car - but this thing sucks - another squared off "rulermobile". It won't compete with Toyota in the long run.

Q: "Does he wear diapers?"

A: "He says no, but his pants look kinda puffy."

Mr_GTO · #36 10-22-2003, 09:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SuperQuad:
Originally posted by Mojo:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Yes the Caddy commercial is annoying. It's also ugly. (the car)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God someone has finally said it! I hear alot of praise for this dorkmobile CTS and other new Caddies. They look like s**t! They were obviously drawn up by someone with a new ruler! -And yes, those commercials are stupid!! The new Malibu is fugly they last one wasn't a bad looking family car - but this thing sucks - another squared off "rulermobile". It won't compete with Toyota in the long run.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you know CTS is selling great? Did you know that the new Malibu is based of the Saab? It too is getting great reviews.

Styling is subjective. Performance isn't.

Good thing you're not in the car business.

HUMBLER · #37 10-22-2003, 10:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SuperQuad:
Originally posted by Mojo:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Yes the Caddy commercial is annoying. It's also ugly. (the car)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God someone has finally said it! I hear alot of praise for this dorkmobile CTS and other new Caddies. They look like s**t! They were obviously drawn up by someone with a new ruler! -And yes, those commercials are stupid!! The new Malibu is fugly they last one wasn't a bad looking family car - but this thing sucks - another squared off "rulermobile". It won't compete with Toyota in the long run.

Q: "Does he wear diapers?"

A: "He says no, but his pants look kinda puffy."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey go support Toyota, Ford, whoever...your option. I'm proud to be a GM fan these days and the products seem to be working in the market. You haven't shown me anything to prove otherwise. Until you do, my mind is made up. GM till death do us part!

Brian Baker · #38 10-22-2003, 10:31 AM

Humbler, I'll always be a GM man, period. But God damn, somebody has to tell them when they're pulling a boner.

The Aztek, as great of a chassis and drivetrain it has, is still ugly as *****. A friend of mine is a mechanic at a Pontiac dealership. When they first started getting them in for routine maintenance or the occasional warranty work, he proclaimed what a pleasure they were to work on, and how reliable the drivetrain was, but admitted they were still fugly.

The 1995 and up Mustang is very much retro' from the dashboard to the tailights, etc. It's just more subtle than the T-bird.

That Cadillac SUV does nothing for me. In fact, everytime I see one, all I can think of is the only way the driver would look even more like a douchebag is if he were driving an Audi Quattro.

HUMBLER · #39 10-22-2003, 11:00 AM

2 different pages we are, except I agree the Aztek was Ugly as sin!