Talk:General Motors

Asüna

Should Asüna, which I'd never heard of until five minutes ago, be in the table of former GM brands? Mr Larrington (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Because you never heard of it before is no reason to remove something from Wikipedia. Asüna was a brand used for captive imports in Canada, much like how Geo was used in the US. Even if it was short lived, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the list. --Vossanova ^o< 14:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

history section is too long

It's a novel 207.162.132.74 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

True, it is long. But GM is one of the oldest surviving brands, so that's expected. Chopping it down would be a disservice. Better to split the history section off into it's own article and leave just a 1 or 2 paragraph summary here.  Stepho  talk  23:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There already is a History of General Motors article though, so we just need to move more of this into there. The "Post-reorganization" section is definitely getting out of hand. WP:NOTNEWS, this is not a place to dump a new line and reference every time a news story about General Motors is released. See also WP:PROSELINE and WP:ANNOUNCED (not policies, but they show how easily a well-written article can turn into a timeline of indiscriminate announcements with unnecessary emphasis on dates). --Vossanova ^o< 18:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Gm employee discount

Do I still get the employees discount even if my father who worked for gm passed away? 2600:1700:2120:BB40:89D3:1D39:FE8D:B474 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not a suitable question for this talk page. A Wikipedia talk page are about improving the Wikipedia article. You will have to ask somewhere else.  Stepho  talk  00:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Engineering summary is totally missing

The article is missing any summary description of the engineering of GM products, and company initiatives to engineer their products. It is missing the role of major engineering efforts of previous decades. But it is also missing things like the commitment GM made in 2019 to design an electric vehicle platform (which they seem to call "Altium") for many EVs across their brands.

This would seem to be important because new products during major technology shifts are critical to a company continuing to exist or the company missing a societal technology shift, and potentially failing or consolidating/shrinking later on. See any Tesla article and you won't find the design, development, & engineering going on missing from an encyclopedic treatment of the company. Cheers. — 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC) N2e (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure. If you have suitable references then feel free to add such a section. If it is more than a few paragraphs long then consider creating a new article and leaving just a summary and link to it from this article.

Beware that almost all big manufacturers have promised to go all electric at some future date. Corporations are also known to change their mind at the drop of a hat. Promises are cheap and non-binding.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Acquisition of Ford

In 1909, General Motors attempted to buy Ford but failed. Is it possible within the following years for General Motors to acquire Ford, as Durant attempted 114 years ago? General Motors would need to buy the Ford Motor Company, to be able to re-take its title as the world's largest automaker, and come close to Toyota with around 10 million produced vehicles a year. GM, would then grow from just four car brands to six or five (depending on if GMC will be discontinued and replaced by Chevrolet): Buick, Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC (the current four); Ford, Lincoln (two new brands if acquiring the FMC). 90.231.234.93 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussion about improving the article. It is not for general discussion about Ford (or GM) and certainly not for speculation on what Ford or GM could do in the future. Stick to reported facts. See WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTFORUM.  Stepho  talk  21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Weight given to individual strikes

Is there a reason to have individual subsections for recent strikes? I mean auto worker strikes are hardly new yet we have as many sections talking about post 2000 strikes as we do for strikes in the all of the 1900s. The impact of individual strikes is probably due in the labor section but this article suggests the strikes in the 70s, 80s and 90s aren't important while the strike which just started is very important. Are editors opposed to some type of consolidation? We could list major strikes without going into detail in this article. Springee (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Beware of WP:RECENTISM.  Stepho  talk  10:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)