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
8456 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 03, 2009 7:43 pm) So the G3 is a niche??? They will need to cancel it sooner or later. Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 03, 2009 7:43 pm) Future product will revised and I foresee 3 Pontiac models with the G3 not one of them" There is hardly any money spent for the G3. It has been on sale in Canada for more than a year. The only reason why the USA is getting it now is to please Pontiac/GMC/Buick dealers craving for more models. This is what needs restructuring. Those dealers should now get used to a smaller Pontiac. What message are you sending them when you give them a G3, except that GM is taking steps, just not fast enough? |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 03, 2009 7:41 pm) There is the Freedom of Information Act in place. Any money spent by Congress is supposed to be open to scrutiny. So if GM sends $3 billion of our tax dollars to China for parts. Don't you think we should know where our money is going? PS I think we should have the same right to all the money given to the banking and Insurance companies. I would like to know who is benefiting from our tax dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 03, 2009 8:43 pm) I totally agree with that. Indeed where the money really has gone to the financial end is actually more telling than everyone's being distracted arguing over the auto industry and their use of the money. It's my opinion the financial rescues were to cover Congress' misdeeds and the obscuring of information there is to save face.  The auto industry has been the whipping boy.  It's like a kid caught in a lie trying to distract with some arguement about another distantly-related item.  On the other hand the problems of the auto industry go beyond management and UAW although they are heartily involved. The problems tie to EPA, CAFE, government regulations, and others that control how imports have been allowed to compete in this country. Question: where are batteries for Ford's new hybrid Fusion going to be built?
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jan 04, 2009 7:01 am) OK. If trucks could get the same or better EPA ratings as cars, we would have no problem in the US auto industry. In addition, if gasoline stayed at $1.50/gallon, GM and C would be healthy now. The imports wouldn't have had a prayer. Correct? Let me know how EPA, CAFE and regs really killed GM and C while letting the Asians proliferate. I am sure that quality and value/price proposition is a weak benefit to the imports. Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 04, 2009 7:30 am) The EPA emissions favor smaller cars. CAFE regulations favor smaller cars. The imports could build smaller cars over seas and ship them here cheaper than the B3 and UAW could possibly build them. The consumer up until this last oil spike wanted high powered PU trucks and SUVs more than they wanted econo boxes. If it was a market purely built on competition I think the Big 3 would be OK. The EPA, CAFE and CARB have battled with the Big 3 for Eons. Only recently when Toyota got into big rigs did they feel the pressure.
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 04, 2009 7:30 am) While I do agree that 6,8,10 years ago the Big 3 should've been flush with cash because of low gas prices and high demand for their trucks and SUV's, loopholes in the CAFE regs that allow Subaru to call the Outback a "truck" and not a station wagon (a car) gave them the opportunity to enter the "truck and SUV" market with car based vehicles. They took advantage of this, and made money, more than they would've if those Pilots and Ridgelines and Odyessies were Accord wagons, and KUDOS to them for that. If I had my way, a truck would be BOF, anything else, a car. Unless the industry as a whole could prove to me otherwise. There would be 2 classes of trucks and 2 classes of cars: Basically, light duty trucks are 8600 GVW and lower getting one standard (say 27 mpg) a medium light duty would be 8601-14,000 GVW, and would have to show they are this class by meeting certain specs for suspension, etc. They would get a lower standard (say 25 mpg) Cars get classified in 2 categories: those 6 passenger and lower, and those w/ more than 6 pass. This way you could get your 40 mpg rating out of a car, and CUV's would be given a lesser rating due to the fact they carry more and are a slightly different bird than a car. (if the govt says 37.5 for cars, then allow say 33 for the CUV's).
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jan 04, 2009 8:06 am) Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Jan 04, 2009 8:29 am) Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jan 04, 2009 9:16 am) I feel that CAFE standards are what helped push people out of station wagons and into trucks and SUV's, as the wagon is a "car" and even a minivan is a "truck". This is the only problem I have with CAFE standards, the loophole that allows mfr's to classify "cars' as "trucks"
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
