Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Chevy Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6/Saturn Relay/Buick Terraza

1222325272892

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Freestyle looked good. Packaging was very clever, they showed a cut-away of the full interior at NAIAS:

    http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid99/p79cc97dc317248d514af- 4e8cb42c9620/f9f611c4.jpg

    3rd row actually looks livable, and it's packed into a reasonably small wrapper.

    -juice
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    It's funny how people are predicting $6000+ rebates and the current 2004 models don't even have that on them. Talk about trash talk!
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    of course there's trash talk, GM 'never brought game'.

    to the general public these vehicles are unchanged, when compared to the press assault of the other real new vans.

    of course its gonna need at least 4 or 5 grand to move em.
  • Dindak - The coming huge big rebates are good news for loyal GM customers who would get one anyway. They just need to wait a bit so they don't overpay. The bad news is for those equally loyal GM stockholders as this vehicle will continue to lose money on every sale.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    regfootball : 04s only have C$3000 on them now. Doubt it's much different down there.

    spartanmann : GM stock has doubled in the last 6 months.
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    will make a profit on the van sales, rebates notwithstanding.

    With GM pulling more and more of its other vehicles out of the rental markets, even if the vans become fleet material, it could help the GM bottom line.

    Over the next few years, I expect the mini-vans to be at least a small part in a larger dividend for me than the dividend I got this year.
  • Dindak - You are correct. The stock price is now back to where it was in 1993 and 30 points lower than its record high a few years back. An 11 year net price appreciation of 0. Assuming their dividend is roughly equivalent to the inflation rate, an investment in GM stock has been dead money over the past decade. That would explain the ridiculously low market P/E of 8. The company continues to have inherent profitability problems stemming from huge incentives to move uncompetitive products. New and competitive products such as the new Caddys and SUVs help to correct the problem. Products like the Aztec, Grand Prix, and this regrilled rehash, continue to excaberate the problem.
  • Jan 10, 1993 Adj stock price $26.37
    Jan 10, 2003 stock price $39.11
    Jan 10, 2004 stock price $53.81
    Based on the info available at GM's web site
  • Thanks for confirming my numbers. The GM stock price in late 1993 is virtually the same as now. If you want to go further back, the performance even gets worse. From 1970 to early 1993, the price appreciation was 0 as well.
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    incentives are a very small piece of the picture.

    The problems over the last ten years had much more to do with pension and health care costs and older, more expensive manufacturing facilities.

    GM has done and excellent job reducing payroll, it has largely funded pension and health care liabilities, and it is near the end of a project to update its facilities. With these cost savings, GM will be more profitable than it has been for many years.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Logic is right. Pension and union issues are much larger drag than anything else. 0% financing costs very little in a very low interest rate environment.

    So if GM stock was $26 10 years ago and is $53 today, how is that virtually the same? Stock also pays a very generous dividend. One of our clients (who works for Ford actually) bought 1000 @ 35 and is sitting pretty now.

    Really, you can look at any stock, time frame it and say it's dead money. Look at all these tech stocks.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    GM has made great progress in updating its manufacturing facilities, but if it uses them to produce uninspiring vehicles, it won't move that far ahead.

    GM needs some barnburners in the mass market segments that compete with the same level of competence as the C6 Corvette and CTS-V do in their respective classes.

    Unfortunately, GM's lineup still features too many warmed-over updates of vehicles that weren't that competitive in the first place. These "new" minivans are a prime example.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    Unfortunately, GM is making due with what they have, financially they are ties by pensions, unions and other legacy costs. They can not afford to revamp everything and they desperately need to. These warmed over vans aren't that bad and might surprise us.
  • theo2709theo2709 Posts: 476
    GM is demonstrating how fast it can adapt to the changing marketplace with its C-Max robots. That is how they are going to be able to change the ION so quickly, and hopefully it will signal a more Japanese approach to vehicle updates.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    Based on what I've seen, the new GM minivans will hold the same ranking against the competition that their predecessors did - a good deal behind the Mopar, Honda and Toyota entries, and slightly behind the Ford entries.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    First: Toyota Sienna XLE
    Second: 2004 Honda Odyssey EX-L/ Nissan Quest 3.5 SE (tie)
    Third: Chrysler Town & Country Limited
    Fourth: Mazda MPV ES
    Fifth: Ford Freestar SEL/ Mercury Monterey Premier
    Sixth: Kia Sedona EX
    Seventh: Buick Terraza CXL/Saturn Relay/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6
    Eighth: Chevrolet Astro LT/ GMC Safari SLE (unless you're towing, then the Astro goes to the top)
    Did I miss a van? Agreed?
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    "The Minivan World Order"

    According to you.

    Kia vans are crap, you must be joking! Freestar (Windstar) although new has lousy mileage / powertrain also and a 80's dash.

    GM vans will easily be better than either. DC vans are tied for top spot IMO with Toyota and Honda.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    The Freestar's interior and dashboard are nice...a major improvement over the Windstar.

    The GM minivans are too narrow, a result of sharing a platform with Opel/Vauxhall models. The updated models are still at a disadvantage against competitors in this regard.
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Posts: 1,031
    The Freestar at least has innovation in it, unlike GM's new vans. :)
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    grbeck : Actually the slight more narrow GM vans are a huge advantage in that they will fit in my garage. Big wide vans are actually a disadvantage to me and many others.

    rctennis3811 : Ya, a fold flat seat.. wow.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    Dindak: I don't doubt that the GM vans meet your needs better than the competition, but looking at the overall market, it seems as though most buyers prefer a wider van.

    What has saved the GM minivans is that they offer more reliable drivetrains than their domestic competitors.
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Posts: 1,031
    Yea, a flat-folding seat that's wide enough to fit three people and can actually fold backwards for tailgating! It is a wow, compared to the Relay.... :)
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    rctennis3811 : Hey.. if tailgating is your thing then ya, grab a freestar. Like I said before, everyone looks for different things. To assume everyone puts a tailgating seat / fold flat seat as their #1 priority is just not reality.

    grbeck : Most people I know in newer houses face the same issue. Our neighbor just bought a Quest and now realizes she can't fit it into the garage and has to park it in the cold and snow. Maybe most people do like wider but their is a niche of people who prefer a bit less width. Selling point for a segment, no doubt!
  • theo2709theo2709 Posts: 476
    Wouldn't power retractable mirrors make that irrelevent, though?
  • I did not make any analysis of GM. I simply stated the correct facts as to their stock performance. It trades today at virtually the identical price as it did in late 1993. The facts for the 1970-1993 period are also correct. Compare the stock performance of many big industrial companies with the same pension and competitive issues as GM over the same period. Companies such as GM, MMM, Proctor and Gamble etc... You will find they were hardly dead money. To say they are in the same boat as GM is completely wrong. Your excuses and explanations as to why GM has performed so poorly may in fact be correct, although I feel that product deficiencies are still the number one problem. However, whatever excuse you pick, long term investors in GM have not fared well at all. That is just a fact. Again, the P/E is not 8 by accident.
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    I've received a dividend nearly every year.

    Some of my tech stock bought at the same period accelerated very quickly. Then it reversed, to put it mildly. The stock I sold before the losses were too bad did me fine. The other stock is worthless.

    None of the tech shares paid a dividend.

    But there is a huge difference between cost of manufacturing and incentives. GM shareholders at least for the time I have held the stock have encouraged GM to cut operating costs. The reason I continue to hold GM stock is that GM has in fact cut operating costs deeper and quicker than many thought possible. Now that GM is moving away from incentives on its new product, it is reasonable to expect greater profitability, higher dividends (which are now taxed less) and higher gains in stock price.
  • regfootballregfootball Posts: 2,166
    I dunno, the fold flat seats seem to be the feature driving the minvan market these days. Its really what distinguished the Odyssey when it was introduced. Its really a 'gotta have' for most folks now.

    'Cept no one told GM that it meant fold flat flush into the floor, not fold flat 6 inches above the load floor.

    Imagine the cussing and swearing with folks trying to lift heavy items up over the 'hump' in the load floor. First heavy item with momentum to snag that bump will see many annoynaces from many buyers saying, 'never again will I buy such an afterthought design'.
  • jchan2jchan2 Posts: 4,956
    why the GM vans are down below the Freestar, sitting with the Sedona and the Astro. At least the Sedona is cheap.
  • dindakdindak Posts: 6,632
    jchan2 : Sedona is cheap cause it's crap.

    reg : Do you honestly think that most people will care about the 6 inches that much if the rest of the van is nice? Maybe you are right, time will tell.

    spartanmann : "That is just a fact". If you say so. I still don't see how $28 in 93 is the same as $53 today though.
  • I think I asked this before, but what exactly are the innovative features in the new vans that will allow GM to sell them at a higher profit with less incentives? Remember the Freestar has a $2500 rebate 3 months after launch and they actually bothered to put in a fold flat rear seat.
Sign In or Register to comment.