"The Goal" of Chevy's 'American Revolution'

[Ming]

Letter: Chevrolet campaign had little to do with patriotism
April 29, 2004
collegiate times
Charles Myslinsky
junior, business information technology

American-made automobiles have been consistent in one field (that is, at least the Ford and General Motors cars I have owned): failure. Not just petty failure - true, outright, blatant mechanical problems that boggle the mind and a well-planned budget.

My 1994 Ford Taurus GL, which at the time had 77,000 miles, was subject to major engine damage due to a water pump failure. It also had a "feature" rarely advertised: rear brakes that caught fire not once or twice but four times during normal driving. In any case, I see no problem with GM running an ad campaign called "An American Revolution."

In "Chevrolet must not deceive consumers in ad campaign" (CT, April 28) the editorial board has clearly missed what the revolution is. While an attempt was made to somehow relate this to renewed patriotism, I believe GM had a much less complex goal.

The revolution itself is a return to style and quality. Before this "revolution" began, any GM car commercial I viewed was automatically dismissed as bogus, because the automobile featured was not emitting some type of smoke, appeared to run without mechanical failure and had a driver that was wearing a smile.

Now that the revolution has started, there has been a clear shift in what GM views as the new American car.

I personally welcome this change; aside from mechanical issues, I believe few would disagree Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have all created cars with unique styles, while American automakers were busy churning out cookie-cutter interior and exterior designs.

GM is demonstrating American automakers can manufacture more than just SUVs. The "revolution" extends through every product line, and with the planned increase in style and quality, GM will lead the fight in helping to win the American consumer back to America's car companies.


Full letter here

Also see Chevrolet Must not Decieve Consumers

[paul8488]

people get way too worked up over advertising. if the vehicles interest you, go try them out and buy one. if not, don't. as long as they don't make claims that are outright lies ("all chevrolets are built in america", or "best quality vehicles anywhere") i don't care what they do to try and catch my interest. could you drive onto a speeding car carrier with an aveo? maybe not. but that ad is stuck in my head more than many other recent car commercials. people have to quit crying ("that ad hurt my patriotic feelings... boohoohoo") and start driving!

[Z28x]

That guys has no clue. GM owns Nissan & VW on reliability & Quality and is gaining fast on Honda and Toyota.

This guy sounds like a real idiot, "I didn't take car of my 10 year old Ford and stuff broke so all American cars are junk", what a retard. Does he know that Hondas eat transmissions like a fat man at a buffet.

[gopedxr7]

77,000miles, thats typical of a car that was never maintained.

Alan

[awalbert88]

Anybody who's engine goes to hell because of a water pump failure has no business writing about automobiles unless that failure was (literally) explosive. But then, he's in "business information technology", so who knows?

Mazda is the only Japanese company right now to make cars that stand out from the crowd - the Mazda3, Mazda6, and RX-8 are all uniquely styled. Now, I think the RX-8 is overdone, but the Mazda6 is a beautiful car.

The "cookie-cutter" era died in the early 90's with domestic cars, but the Japenese seem to be reviving it. As was mentioned about Toyota, other than the Prius and MR-s, none of their cars stand out from the other. For Honda, I couldn't tell apart an Accord from a Civic at a distance anymore.

This sounds more like somebody who beat the hell out of his cars and presumes it's the fault of the vehicles. If you treat your wife the way you treat your car, you'll get the same results. Oh sure, it's still cheaper to own the car, and you don't have to buy it nice things all the time, but you can't ignore its needs and pretend like everything is fine.

[2000 GTP]

It’s clear to see that this guy doesn’t know what he is writing about. How can some one sit there and honestly say the Honda and Toyota have “unique styles” and GM turns out cookie-cutter cars. Talk about calling the kettle black.

Honda and Toyota pride themselves in making what I would call plain-Jane cars. And the truth of it is, that’s what people are buying today. Look at the new Malibu (which I like) but there isn’t a lot of style in it but it’s supposed to be a very sound car, but you know what, that might be one reason it will sell.

My guess it this guy wrote this article just to steer things up. Were all commenting on his article? Would we be doing that if he simply said that the “revolution” was a good campaign and should work well for GM, probably not!

[GM-10]

Originally posted by Ming@Apr 30 2004, 02:34 PM
Letter: Chevrolet campaign had little to do with patriotism
April 29, 2004
collegiate times
Charles Myslinsky
junior, business information technology

American-made automobiles have been consistent in one field (that is, at least the Ford and General Motors cars I have owned): failure. Not just petty failure ? true, outright, blatant mechanical problems that boggle the mind and a well-planned budget.

My 1994 Ford Taurus GL, which at the time had 77,000 miles, was subject to major engine damage due to a water pump failure. It also had a "feature" rarely advertised: rear brakes that caught fire not once or twice but four times during normal driving. In any case, I see no problem with GM running an ad campaign called "An American Revolution."

In ?Chevrolet must not deceive consumers in ad campaign? (CT, April 28) the editorial board has clearly missed what the revolution is. While an attempt was made to somehow relate this to renewed patriotism, I believe GM had a much less complex goal.

The revolution itself is a return to style and quality. Before this "revolution" began, any GM car commercial I viewed was automatically dismissed as bogus, because the automobile featured was not emitting some type of smoke, appeared to run without mechanical failure and had a driver that was wearing a smile.

Now that the revolution has started, there has been a clear shift in what GM views as the new American car.

I personally welcome this change; aside from mechanical issues, I believe few would disagree Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have all created cars with unique styles, while American automakers were busy churning out cookie-cutter interior and exterior designs.

GM is demonstrating American automakers can manufacture more than just SUVs. The "revolution" extends through every product line, and with the planned increase in style and quality, GM will lead the fight in helping to win the American consumer back to America's car companies.


Full letter here

Also see Chevrolet Must not Decieve Consumers

I sadly had to buy a 1995 Taurus. The break problem is real. She also forgot to mention the recalls regarding fires with transmission sensores and cooling fans-all very real.

BUT...its a F#@$%ing FORD.

Because Ford sucks...it doesn't mean GM Does.

THey may both be American, but they are not the same.

Talk about sweeping generalities.

Much like Toyota's are reliable and Mitisubishi's suck.

While they are both japanese, Toyota is great and Mitsubishi is a p.o.s. ricemobile.

[IMPALAon20s]

he never did showed why the thought GM sucked. never said he owned one, nor driven one. i thought the more rugged, rwd, v8 even v6 cars of the 80's kicked ***!! fwd 80-90's products were another story. i see smoking mufflers on imports all the time, its not something limited to brand, thats just poor vehicle care. and yeah interior quality was far behind for a long time but did that make it unreliable or dangerous as he emplies. (for ford ok but not gm)

amazing how much info you can find on a person with just the authors name.

Charles Myslinsky
AAEC Help Desk
Office: 220 Hutcheson Hall
E-mail: helpdesk@agecon.vt.edu; cmyslins@agecon.vt.edu
(appears to be his email, sure he'd appreciate some feedback)
*
Hours of Operation:
Monday
10:00 - 11:00 AM
12:00 (Noon) - 2:15PM

Tuesday
9:00AM - 4:00PM

Wednesday
10:00 - 11:00 AM
12:00 (Noon) - 2:15PM

Thursday
9:00AM - 4:00PM

Friday
10:00 - 11:00 AM
12:00 (Noon) - 2:15PM

[ebacic]

15 years ago my wife and I were looking for a car. She had gotten rid of her crap Corolla that saw more maintenance than all of our cars since, combined! On our drives back and forth to varioius dealerships the number one car we saw crapped out on the side of the road was a Ford. It was easily 10 dead Fords for any type of other car. We bought an Intrepid. We kept it 7 years, no problems. Then sold it for a Montana mini-van.

Today, as I drive in to work, I see either beaters on the side of the road dead or Japanese cars. My wife has taken to noticing how often we've seen Honda's especially. It's really quite weird. It's especially true whenever the weather changes from hot to cold or dry to wet. Where I live, the weather's known for weird and wacky changes.

So who makes crap? I think, on any given purchase, you can get a lemon today. But it's not like the 70s or 80s where I think all cars, including the Japanese cars, were crap. It's just the Japanese cars sucked less. Through the 90s styling sucked generally. But now, we're seeing a rennaissance of styling. To me the leaders are GM, Mazda, and Nissan. Chrysler has some interesting stuff, but it's either too much or not enough of a good thing. BMW has lost its mind. And Mercedes, well, they've mostly had dull cars. Toyota and Honda just build, to my eye, plain and ugly (see: Civic/Corolla, Camry/Accord, RAV4/Element). The only cool Toyota is the Prius, but that's because of the technology not the overall car.

Regardless, when we went looking for a car recently we settled on a CTS. Why? Simple. The styling stood out and the quality is excellent. Nealry a year in, nothing, nada. Which is exactly the number of problems with the GTP, Montana, and Alero we had: none. As opposed to the Intrepid, one. Or the infamous Corolla, dozens upon dozens. And don't bring up Honda, we had a Civic in the house for a few months in the mid-90s. That was more than enough pain. It made the Corolla look good as the Corolla at least got my wife to work now and again!

Your mileage may vary!

[ponchoman49]

There is nothing more "cookie" cutter than a Honda or Toyota. The 97-01 style Camry had to be the blandest car ever produced. You drive one and you come away with a big yawn. As far as Nissan goes there current styling is borderline cartoonish. I still prefer american styling to Asian cars and even like South Korian
designs better.

[New_Mexico_Sunset_on_Rt66]

Both those guys are f*'n idiots. One of those guys wouldn't buy a Chevy, no matter what they do. They are opinions, however.

As for "cookie-cutter interiors" I think most of the imports are cookie-cutter. Ooh, silver plastic, yea ! <_<

Sept. 11 had no bearing on the "Revolution" ad campaign. Sept. 11 and Chevy producing better procucts are exclusive events. If Sept. 11 hadn't happened I think Chevy would still have the campaign. They are not capitalizing on the patiotism from Sept 11, which by the way has vaporized.

Actually, I think Chevy producing kick-a$$ products can help to bring back more patriotism.

Perceptions are still a large component. Most people are like, "ooh, I don't wanna buy a Chevy because of what people will think".

It's more sexy to drive an import.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the future. I think many Americans still have their head so far up their a$$es...

<_< <_< <_<

[IMPALAon20s]

Originally posted by ebacic@Apr 30 2004, 01:22 PM

So who makes crap? I think, on any given purchase, you can get a lemon today. But it's not like the 70s or 80s where I think all cars, including the Japanese cars, were crap.

slow down a minute. 80's g-body's kicked ***!!!

[Canuck]

Originally posted by laserwizard@Apr 30 2004, 03:53 PM
...Nissan killed the Z. Mazda killed the RX-7 ....

Actually high prices and poor sales killed both of these cars. Both continued to sell in Japan after their respective companies stopped selling these cars in North America.
You are correct however Japanese companies ratherly have led with styling. There are exceptions.

[xellow]

:lol: Back to the origonal point. This author is an idiot! No need to justify why...

[mstrjon32]

What a moron.

It's reading articles like that from morons who have no conception of reality and are living in their little wavy blue line Honda dealership world that are the reason American cars don't sell. He'll probably go on to write for one of America's ****ty auto magazines.

Honda's have about as much style as what I flushed down the toilet this morning. The Civic is a TERRIBLE looking car. It looks bad from every angle. The back just drops off, the sides look square and the mold lines from the side to the trunk aren't blended at all. Guess what, they aren't any more reliable than any American car on the road either. When the water pump dies in a damn Civic, its not like its not gonna drop if you don't fix it. If you take care of your cars they will last you. My family has always owned American cars, and kept them until at least, if not well beyond 150,000 miles.

I should send this moron an email.