Nickname: squidrow

Review: If Suzuki didn't make much money for GM, it's because they were much better cars than the usual s**t they were shilling. We're all loyal return customers; we're just still happily driving our first Metros and such.

Date reviewed: Aug 7, 2006 12:25 AM

Nickname: Steve

Review: The smaller Japanese should now quickly consolidate into a single company with four brands- Subaru (upscale), Mitsubishi (Sporty), Isuzu (Truck-SUV) and Suzuki (small and economy cars). It will enable them to compete more efectively with Toyota and Honda. Otherwise, the evolutionary pressure will expunge them from the global marketplace.

Date reviewed: Mar 30, 2006 11:37 PM

Nickname: ST

Review: GM needs to know the strategy for joint-venture or else they will keep losing lots of money. Selling property might be a short-term recovery but not for long term. They must think the best solution to stabilize back or else they might go into bankruptcy. The China market is not the last call for them to regain ground. Eventually they need to diversify and restructure correctly.

Date reviewed: Mar 14, 2006 2:26 AM

Nickname: Chip

Review: The article totally misses the crucial role of Suzuki in managing GM Daewoo, which is one of the few bright spots in GM globally. That would not be as successful without Suzuki involvement.

Date reviewed: Mar 10, 2006 7:32 AM

Nickname: ma

Review: GM did succeed in one of its joint ventures. Just take a look at its huge success last year in chinese market, which is already second largest in the world. Will chinese costumers save GM? no one knows, but it's probably the last hope for GM.

Date reviewed: Mar 7, 2006 7:25 PM

Nickname: Max

Review: "Subaru built the Saab 9-2X sedan and wagon for a few years." Bullet points: There is no such thing as 9-2X sedan; How does it get to 'a few years' when the first year was 2005?

Date reviewed: Mar 7, 2006 5:31 PM