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
8272 messages, Last post on Nov 24, 2009 at 5:33 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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. |
|
|
I notice your Genesis is doing REAL well. Sold a WHOPPING 1,151 cars in Nov., as opposed to the old, dusty, outdated, Lucerne which sold 3,134. Even the CTS outsold it with 2,902 sales. Even the Enclave outsold it with 2,288. I guess everybody knows it's STILL just a Hyundai, even though they hide the emblems real well It's a Hyundai alright, comparing it with the Lucerne is somewhat adequate, but Enclave and CTS????? Come on, cooter. Be fair, it's positioned as a large car to compete in the near luxury class, CTS doesn't apply there. Much less Enclave, obviously. Lucerne indeed sold more, there's no denying that, helped by the fact that Buick customers are very loyal to the brand. Genesis is still new, wait another year or so to see what happens for a fair comparison. IMO it's most appropriate to compare the Genesis with Buick (LaCrosse, Lucerne), Chrysler (300), Lincoln (MKZ), Nissan (Maxima) and Lexus ES by "class" and "market". Hyundai itself place the Genesis to fight off those competitors, not CTS and above. "This is why they actually had to come up with "standards" to be met when using the terms "Made in America" and "Assembled in America" etc. etc. Which is a bit scary, a rule actually has to say "to qualify for "Made in America" product must be assembled in north america and contain at least 70% American sourced parts, all of which must qualify for at least "Assembled in America" status." Now here's the key part IMO. We're looking at federal standardization, however no matter which status a car is qualified for the GM dealers will still sell those cars with the words "American Made", "Made in America", "Buy American", etc. etc stamped all over them. Simply because there's no law that can force companies to disclose the real status except by giving specific VIN codes. This way a GM car can have 50% foreign parts and still be sold on dealer's lot as "American" (notice the playing with words here). Simple example, when a customer ask if the car's made in US, will GM officials and dealers' salespeople say something like 1) "Umm, 20% parts came from China, another 20% from Mexico, and about 5% from Canada, then they're all assembled in Fairfax, Kansas"? Or... 2) They'll simply say "This car is all American, it's an American brand, designed and surely assembled in America by American labors" I bet 1,000% most, if not everytime the answer is (2). 1) I, along with everyone else out there with half a brain, will just simply buy a new foreign car a few days before the new higher "import" tax is implemented. 2) I, along with everyone else will vote against/vote out the Politicians who inact a ridiculous idea like taxing/tarrifing high quality vehicles (aka imports). Same here, LOL.
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Dec 30, 2008 3:59 pm) Lets see, 1) I DO NOT beleve that 900k people will actually lose their jobs (read my post #2968). I've said this before with so many parts for GM cars produced overseas there's no way there are actually that many people related to GM in their jobs. 2) Some of those workers are already unemployed thanks to GM's poor business management. The economy ADDS the pain, but GM started the whole mess by itself. There's no guarantee that the bailout will be used wisely either. 3) Even assuming the 900k is accurate, not all will lose jobs, as I stated earlier (kernick also did so many times) some of those workers, parts supplier, dealer, etc, etc will switch to other brands for their living. Not all, but some will. Simply put: the projected unemployement numbers are well off and bloated. 4) You can't compare the cost of building bridges to the cost of building cars, the $9billion vs. 900billion doesn't apply. Construction, infrastructure building cost much more than operating a car company. 5) Please remember that GM will request more bailout by March 31st. Think, $9 billion to keep jobs open for 3 months??? "No guarantees that they are permanent jobs. For instance, after the bridge is built, what does the worker then do? If you look at the return on the stimulus dollar spent, The bird in hand (GM Job) costs the same as 100 in the bush (OBAMA's plan). " 1) The bridges, roads, and other infrastructures built will be OURS to use, not just for the wealth of certain companies. That's what taxpayers money is supposed to be used for, for our welfare not GM execs and UAW alone. 2) Infrastructure takes a whole lot of time to build. Meaning: jobs will be guaranteed for at least a few years, and by the time the projects are done the economy will recover and there will be new jobs for them, jobs that'll require more infrastructure for efficient distribution and transportation. Infrastructure means jobs, when they're done it means more jobs to come. It's among the basics of macroeconomics. 3) There are long term goals in Obama's plan, something totally missing in GM's and Wallstreet's. "If the LOANS to the D3 keep getting repeated, It could become comparable to the other gov't. stimulus plans, where the planned payback is a couple million jobs for a total stimulus package not to equal a Trillion Dollars" The planned payback still focus on the D3's benefit, and UAW's, NOT FOR US TAXPAYERS. The D3 loan isnt guaranteed to be used wisely. With even more outsourcing in their agenda GM will keep current jobs available at best. For how long???? There's no use in building cars nobody will buy. These years almost all carmakers are already overproducing by about 30%, GM among the worst. When the cars they make aren't selling, cash flow gets disturbed, or even worse, stuck. SImply put, big money goes out, but little or almost none goes in their account. At it's current position GM can't make enough profit per car sold, no need to ask why, it's so obvious. When that happens the jobs will go bye-bye unless the government gives even more loans. More loans = jobs stay = cash stuck again = loans, and around they go. If this keeps going just HOW will the D3 pay it back? "Hence....If Obama's plan is as good as GM's at job creation... " Obama's plan's a lot better and is focused on people's welfare not just a few groups "are you one of the 'pissed'? " Pissed of what? If you're talking about the bailout, yes, as I don't support bailout for anyone not even Wallstreet. I pay big taxes, and I dont want my tax money "donated" (read: wasted) on some trashes without anything in return just because they can't support their lifestyles anymore. Buy out those problematic companies if they must, I'll support, lending money with no guarantee of return, forget it. Public's money is for public welfare, period. You're comparing GM's (microeconomics based) plan with Obama's (macro based). The thing is there's always a limit in which microeconomical plans such as GM's can't reach. We can debate as long as you want on economics, I'd gladly serve. Additional note, thanks to the bailout, I've decided to not even consider D2 products (D3 if Ford gets one later) at least until they pay back the loans. And believe me I'm not alone, as far as I know a lot of people in the west coast and northeast are going the same route. Gee, I wonder what will happen to GM's future sales? So much for their "plans" 
|
|
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
