Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8271 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 9:49 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Dec 31, 2008 11:31 am) Eventually, but there are about 40+ million lightly-used vehicles out there which need to be used up more before new vehicles become attractive again. |
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Dec 31, 2008 7:19 am) |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Dec 30, 2008 3:52 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 31, 2008 1:22 pm) It also shows that there has been a steady decline in car sales in NA since 2000. We are becoming less of a market for anybody making cars. What explains this? Are the quality of cars increasing so fast that new replacements are not needed as fast anymore? Are we becoming a nation of people who can't afford new cars anymore? Are the jobs that support new car buying dissappearing? Is all our new car money funnelled into gas instead? Will the price charged by Asia for new cars rise as they take all the volume and then there is no competition? I do not think that $14.50 an hour for all US autoworkers is a good plan. Mitsubishi put a new plant in W.V. to take a huge chunk of parts business from the UAW. GM managers were promoted for coming up with the cost cuts associated with giving the business to the lower cost Asian supplier. I found the place in W.V. that got the new Mitsu plant. People there are loving the new factory. It's an hour from the nearest interstate in any direction. Only problem is that a rust belt town is dead as a result.
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Dec 31, 2008 6:51 pm) If Michigan and Ohio do not want to lose all their Auto industry they better become "Right to Work" states. No automaker in their right mind would build a factory in a state that the Unions control. Just as uncontrolled capitalism has negatives, so does uncontrolled Unionism. Michigan epitomizes Unions gone crazy. Unions never have and never will generate one penny of revenue for a community. Businesses create jobs, NOT Unions. |
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Dec 31, 2008 6:51 pm) A little of what you said, but mostly the US market is simply saturated. Everyone who really wants a car has at least one (not necessarily new) and at this point any new car sales will be de facto replacements for worn-out or wrecked vehicles. |
|
|
Replying to: m4d_cow (Dec 30, 2008 11:19 am) That really worked in the '80's. With the voluntary import quotas the J3 prices went way up and people STILL wanted those cars. People will pay for quality. So the D3 need to work on that, fast. |
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Dec 31, 2008 1:22 pm) GM isn't making bad *cars*. It's making bad trucks. Too bad none of their plans seem to do a thing about fixing their truck lines. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Dec 31, 2008 7:06 am) On the other hand if they delay the CTS coupe they're not making a good decision because another company has a coupe coming that's in the same realm. Why don't they get rid of some of the junk vehicles and design good new ones rather than delaying critical strategic vehicles? |
|
|
Replying to: plekto (Dec 31, 2008 11:47 pm) There is something going on behind the scenes we do not know about. At least half the 1/2 ton full sized trucks could be replaced with S10/Ranger sized PU trucks if they got decent mileage and had any power. A 4 cylinder 2.5L diesel would be plenty of power, and yield over 30 MPG combined. My Ranger PU is a joke. No power from a V6 with 3.0L and an automatic. I never get over 16 MPG. And it does not have enough power to keep up with traffic on the Interstate when I go up the hill. It is FFV so gets special CAFE treatment. A midsized PU with half a Duramax diesel could put GM back in the running. Workmen in construction and maintenance just need a truck. They do not need a 1 ton crew cab with 600 HP diesel engine. You pull a 15k lb trailer then you need that. Most I see are pulling 3k lb utility trailers with lawnmowers and garden tools. My wife's stepson owns a contracting business. He has several F350 diesel trucks. He drives around in a 10 year old Tacoma 4 banger that he claims uses more fuel than his big one ton diesels. I know the 94 Toyota PU my son had was no mileage winner. If VW was able to offer a PU that got 50 MPG 30 years ago. Why can't GM or the other Domestics. Are they in bed with the oil companies? I don't think the GM board or management have what it takes to gain back any of the market share they have thrown away. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
