That's still nearly double the national average today at $30+k! If you mom makes anything at all, even baby-sitting for neighbors or have an in-law apartment to rent out, your folks would be over $65k and in the top 20% bracket.
Check IRS data again. You are making things up as you go just to have something to say. In nominal terms wages have not regressed over the last 6 years. Real purchasing power terms may be different, but either way, it neither gets in the way of my pointing out that you are in fact coming from a family of privilege, nor particularly relevent to this discussion on relative income.
Shoddy vehicle quality was the result of UAW objection to automation back in the 80's;
I see this as a red herring. You could use good materials and cover exposed screw heads without automation. The price might be higher, but nobody is saying "Gee, GM makes superlative cars, they're just too expensive...". GM does not make superlative cars, and the reason is not automation.
That's because the the rebadged trailblazer/envoy/rainer, 9-7x created sales
Short term gain equals long term pain. Higher sales now, but in a few years Saab will be in the homogeneous melting pot of all the other undifferentiated GM brands. Saab won't mean anthing different than Pontiac or Buick. Ignition key on the console is not going to be enough to differentiate the Saab image. "Born from jets" advertising won't either.
The shoddy vehicle quality of the 80's was not about uncovered screw heads, or even rusting cars (Japanese cars rusted plenty back then). It was about obvious mis-alignment when parts were put together. All the way though the early 90's, Toyota used to tout its assembly precision by running a ad featuring a steel bearing ball running along the panel gaps to show just how smoothly their cars were put together. That's the result of automation. Human beings simply can not make cars like that by hand.
That's a theory, unproven. Honda and Toyota seem to behandling Acura and Lexus brands just fine despite heavily recycling the parts bin of the plebian brands.
> If you went back to 2003 and drove the current Honda Accord (I4 or V6) against its competetors, I don't know how anyone objective can say the domestics were even in the same league
Strange, I drove one. Do you mean the car with the hard ride, hard seats, steering lead, steering wander, brakes that were a problem, cracking when going into driveways flexing the front cradle causing weldless areas to pop, huge A-pillar view blockage, and I'd have to go back to the discussion to find what things people had as problems that became recognized as not a good year for the VunderHonda? Oh, the ugle rear was a turnoff too.
As you can see I chose a better car at a same or lower out-the-door price and didn't have to struggle to get a good price from an arrogant salesman with addon pacs out the wazoo.
I drove a 4 and a 6. The 6 was even worse riding and driving. I realized I liked the leSabre better.
>that GM has benefited from a fiercely loyal customer base that refuses to consider anything without a GM nameplate
I don't agree with that. Most people do shopping; we're just not dumb and blind.
>I do agree some of the gear heads at the car mags seem a bit biased torwards performance cars. ...there is no excuse that GM can't build BMW-ish vehicles.
When they do build something they get the Dan Rather treatment from the reviewers.
Well, you just refuted Socal's prediction that it would never sell.
Actually, you didn't. (And Rocky didn't claim to.) According to GM's own US numbers: GM production data
-9-7X deliveries YTD Jan-May: 2,368 units -For the month of May: 47 units -Total US Saab deliveries YTD Jan-May: 14,396 units -Same period last year: 14,354 units -Net gain for 2006: 42 units
So, I guess we can gather from this data that:
-The "Born From Jets" campaign may have helped to sell a whopping 42 vehicles so far. That's an extra 0.8 cars for every state in the union!
-The 9-7X is sinking like a stone. (GM had better hope that they can break the 50 sales per month barrier that they set in May.)
If you look at overall YTD May US sales (Automotive News), Toyota and Honda collectively gained about as many sales as compared to last year as GM has managed to lose. I guess that SUV's-will-save-us/small-cars-aren't-profitable strategy is really working its magic now, isn it?
The shoddy vehicle quality of the 80's was not about uncovered screw heads, or even rusting cars
OK, but what about the last 5 years? Why still subpar?
I noticed that JD Power just released their ratings for customer satisfaction. Porsche was number 1. The best domestic make was Lincoln, at 11th. Ford had a few cars like the Fusion and Mustang. Nowhere was GM even mentioned in the article I read. What were they looking for? (and these are for CURRENT cars):
Porsche leads in all areas that matter most in the study including exterior styling, driving dynamics, and engine and transmission.
Toyota used to tout its assembly precision by running a ad featuring a steel bearing ball running along the panel gaps
That's a theory, unproven. Honda and Toyota seem to behandling Acura and Lexus brands just fine despite heavily recycling the parts bin of the plebian brands.
Well, Honda has two divisions and Toyota has three. I can easily understand what they're each for, what market they serve. I know that Acura is upscale. I know that Scion is edgy, entry-level. I know there are very few "nearly identical" cars between divisions. I also know that a Saab 9-X is a rebadged GM SUV (Trailblazer?). How does that help differentiate Saab's image as a unique, quirky, foreign brand?
I also know that a Saab 9-X is a rebadged GM SUV (Trailblazer?). How does that help differentiate Saab's image as a unique, quirky, foreign brand?
It doesn't, as you surely know. It's the same badge erosion that has occurred across the rest of GM's brands in North America.
Let's take this Saab SUV. Sales so far for the year are under 2,400 units. (To correct a mistake that I made, May sales were 555 units, a still unimpressive figure.) At the current pace, this truck may generate 5,000-6,000 units for the year, which almost ensures that it will lose money for the division.
Now look at the rest of the Saab line. 9-2 sales are practically nil, sales of the 9-5 are down by 25%, and the 9-3 is flat. Like the 9-7, the 9-2 is just a rebadge job.
Given the sales of the SUV, its days are numbered, so you can bet that it will get cancelled soon enough. With that, what will remain is a badge with essentially one car (the 9-3) which can't compete with its rivals and generates almost no sales, and a 9-5 that few Americans will likely even notice.
It makes you wonder why GM even bought Saab. If the goal was to sell Subarus or GM SUV's at higher prices, it isn't working. The 9-3 is now bland, rather than quirky and different, so its sales here in the US are lackluster. You can't blame the workers for any of that bungling.
Well when you sell a 14,000 cars and then you introduce a SUV and it sell a few thousand vehicles you can come up with a 17-24% increase. Your always going to beable to get a few suckers to buy products that aren't any good and simply rebadges. GM management destroyed Saab. :sick:
Well union wages have taken a few step forward, but real earning took like a 3.8 % step back from 2000-2005. Lou Dobbs, wasn't the only person that talked about this. This came up on several finacial shows on Fox,CNN,MSNBC. If you factor in like you said purchasing power that's the stat that is most important to this economy.
I see this as a red herring. You could use good materials and cover exposed screw heads without automation. The price might be higher, but nobody is saying "Gee, GM makes superlative cars, they're just too expensive...". GM does not make superlative cars, and the reason is not automation.
Well, you just refuted Socal's prediction that it would never sell.
Actually, you didn't. (And Rocky didn't claim to.)
"Actually, you didn't"? When did I say I did??
Rocky said, the 17% sales increase Saab experienced in the US and 24% increase worldwide was due to 9-7x sales.
Either 9-7 is selling like gangbusters or it is not; One of you two must be lying.
-The "Born From Jets" campaign may have helped to sell a whopping 42 vehicles so far. That's an extra 0.8 cars for every state in the union!
Yet, you are ignoring the 17% increase Saab has had in the US and 24% increase worldwide. Selective data mining seems to be the perfect tool for proving just about any wacky thesis.
It was a Camry commercial touting their extra digit precision in manufacturing gap tolerance. I have no idea what Nissan ad did.
Customer satisfaction survey is not the same thing as quality survey. GM has been scoring very well in the Initial Quality surveys in the last few years.
You are ignoring two basic facts of the auto industry:
1. Car sales are seasonal. Feb-May is especially slow while the fall season and especially end of year is especially quick. It's farcical to extrapolate Jan-May sales to the whole year without seasonal adjustment;
2. Platform sharing is a fact of life nowadays in the auto industry. Porsche Cayenne sales has dropped precipitously this year not to mention last year the model dragged down Porsche's IQ survey numbers to hell. Are you going to say Porsche and VW/Audi management are even worse than GM management? With Hyundai CEO behind bars and former Toyota NA chief facing hundreds of millions dollars in lawsuit, one has to wonder, if the auto industry should just let SocalA4 take over the helm :-)
How exactly does all that obfuscation change the fact that $57k is still very close to the $65k cut-off point for top-20% household income? and way above the $30+k average?? Turn off the bubblvision and stick to the point please.
brightness, I will make around $60,000 this year and I will tell you I'm far from being well off. Kids cost alot of dough and as much as I want a new car I'm second guessing if I will pull the trigger. I'm pretty postive I'm going to pull the trigger on grandma's 02' Aurora within the next week or so. I'm not starving, but not rich either like people like yourself living in that top 5 percentile.
Dad, only had 27 years in at GM/Delphi and isn't getting the extra $35,000 like the media is printing. He will get a lousy $2800 a month over the next 3 years and then will get a little over $3,000. He's not complaining, but said money will be tight unless he goes gets another job, (perhaps part-time)
Saab, could of been the Volvo/BMW-ish brand if GM would put a little R&D into the brand. Myself I like the brand and it potential. I hope GM does fix Saab, and makes it successful.
>He will get a lousy $2800 a month over the next 3 years and then will get a little over $3,000.
You may have answered this earlier but what kind of healthcare is he getting from GM? It's always been irritating around here because so many employees and retirees have total healthcare and there are so many of them it has caused the cost to rise to others with lower rates of coverage in our area.
He will get full healthcare also when he retires but will have to pay a portion of it, since that was renegotiated a few months ago to relieve GM of $15 billion over X number of years. It's still excellent coverage and plan.
Yet, you are ignoring the 17% increase Saab has had in the US.
You might want to stop reading spun press releases, and look at GM's actual data reported to investors, for which I provided a link.
Pay attention -- there was no US sales increase for the first five months of this year. You're looking at a 3- month period that has since passed and without any background detail. The detailed and more current data shows that overall sales are flat.
Pay more attention -- Saab's US sales within nameplates are either flat (9-3) or falling (the others). There are no hits in the lineup, and quite a few dogs.
Do the math -- the only reason that Saab's sales stayed constant compared to 2005 is because this poorly selling 9-7X provided a few sales to offset declines of the 9-2 and 9-5. The brand is withering on the vine in the US, and replacing the Saabarus with Chevy Saabs is not going to help.
As Rocky pointed out, these sales only help because there were so few sales to begin with. When you start so low, even tiny sales numbers begin to comprise a large percentage of the total.
And you can bet that if the 9-7X ends up selling only 5,000-6,000 units this year, as it is on track to do (and roughly what I predicted earlier this year here) that it will have proven to be a costly failure. There was no reason to spend the R&D and marketing money on a car, even if it is just a rebadge, to sell so few units, particularly when it will just lead to more brand confusion and dilution. Bad, bad move.
Saab would have been long dead without GM take-over.
Which really only makes GM's management appear more incompetent. What possible good reason would GM have to buy a dying company?
Companies that aren't capable of leading turnarounds shouldn't be buying other companies that require turning around. GM is a massive bumbling bureaucracy, not capable or nimble enough of doing the stuff that should be left to aggressive private equity firms who understand how to turn ailing companies. (And in case you were wondering, replacing the management team is generally around the top of the list.)
...wouldn't the same apply to Jaguar? British-Leyland almost killed Jaguar and Ford most certainly rescued it from certain death. Was Volvo in any kind of trouble before Ford bought it out?
At least GM didn't put so much into Saab to the peril of Cadillac as Ford put into Jaguar to the peril of Lincoln. Heck, Saab-o-philes should be happy that GM put their favorite quirky make on life support for the time being, else, the make would've expired on its own sometime around 1990.
I'd say I'm one of those who are fiercely loyal to GM. That doesn't mean I'm blind. I do look at other makes both foreign and domestic, but always come back to Cadillac or Buick for they usually have exactly what I'm looking for.
GM shouldn't of baughten Saab, pal. Why ? They never fixed there main brands and had to cut olds because it was too many brands that were begining to blend as rebadges. They still seem to have no plan or direction on what to do in these hard times. While we do see promise from Buick and Cadillac, and now Saturn, what about Chevy, Pontiac, GMC, Saab ??? The sand in the hour glass is trickeling down and alot of good union and non-union peoples jobs are on the line.
He will get a lousy $2800 a month over the next 3 years and then will get a little over $3,000.
That is a dandy retirement for only 27 years. I just retired after 45 years in the telephone business. I worked the last 36 years under a Teamster contract. I only get $3700 per month and have to pay my own healthcare. I did not get anything for the 9 years at AT&T.
That retirement gives your dad, who I assume is still under 60 a chance to pick and choose what he wants to do. Most people in this country with that few years working will not get that much retirement. He was smart to bail out of the sinking ship.
If you are in the $60k demographic you should be driving an entry level Camry or Accord. Toyota claims the Prius a $27k car is being sold to the $85k per year crowd. I see so many people making what you are making. They are being sold $500k homes and $40k SUVs. They have to be buried in debt.
Oh, I was always against the purchase of Saab, but I guess it was better for Saab fans. I, myself, never cared for the make pre or post-GM. Do you know that Pontiac was almost abolished in the 1970s? Funny after so much success in the 1960s. I think "Smokey and the Bandit" may have had a lot to do with Pontiac's salvation back then. Almost everybody, including my 66 year-old Uncle Howard, wanted a Trans Am like Burt Reynold's car as he was the hottest actor of the time. Unfortunately both Pontiac and Reynold's stars have faded since then.
Saab was always an ugly well built car. Now it is a decent looking POC. I never liked Volvo either. I guess Ford has done OK with them. I would have bought an early 90s Saab over a Volvo. Now I would probably go with a Volvo.
If you are in the $60k demographic you should be driving an entry level Camry or Accord. Toyota claims the Prius a $27k car is being sold to the $85k per year crowd. I see so many people making what you are making. They are being sold $500k homes and $40k SUVs. They have to be buried in debt.
The reason the "cheap" prius is selling to rich folks is the same reason some buy the bling SUV's/sports cars/whatever is in. They do it for attention or to make a statement. Hybrids that look like the cars they are based on are not selling. Honda learned a lesson there. Just like the GTO, the buyers of these cars do it so that others notice them (not in all cases of course). So the obvious Prius sells well. The other ones do not.
Someone making $85k can pretty easily afford a $500k home and $50k car. Yes they do have a 30 year mortgage or a 3/4 year car lease, but if they are fiscally conservative they do not need to have credit card debt or other debt. $85k is a lot of money in most parts of the country.
They had Swedish relatives they wanted to bail out.
Can we have a moratorium on the conspiracy theories, please?
GM bought Saab because it wanted a brand presence to compete with the European luxury makers. Ford had bought Volvo for a high price, so Saab seemed like a bargain in comparison.
Of course, Saab was cheaper because it was a loser that effectively had only one car (and an odd one at that), so a lower price tag didn't make it a good value. We've already covered how bad GM is at buying other automakers, and this is just one example.
Hybrids that look like the cars they are based on are not selling.
The Camry hybrids are selling nicely, and are absorbing some would-be Prius buyers because the Camry waiting lists are a bit shorter. The technology is beginning to make headway in going mainstream, which is why TMC is betting big on it and plans on quadrupling its production capacity.
...I'd only have my 1988 Buick Park Avenue. Save your money! Sixty thou may be a lot of money where my parents now live, (NE Pennsylvania) but it's barely middle class in Philly.
They only make $85K and live in a $500K house? Do they ever plan to pay it off? Is that $85K total household income or does each parent make that with the kids kicking in a few bucks for utilities? Maybe the dog handles the escrow. Fortunately, I got my place before the market went totally psychotic.
So your theory is Saab was doing well under Swedish rule? That GM came in and bought them to have a European presence? What is conspiratorial about the failure of the Swedish market? There only two name brands were bought at fire sale prices.
That is a dandy retirement for only 27 years. I just retired after 45 years in the telephone business. I worked the last 36 years under a Teamster contract. I only get $3700 per month and have to pay my own healthcare. I did not get anything for the 9 years at AT&T.
&
That retirement gives your dad, who I assume is still under 60 a chance to pick and choose what he wants to do. Most people in this country with that few years working will not get that much retirement. He was smart to bail out of the sinking ship.
So u have to 100% of your own healthcare ? yuck and sad for all those years of service. :sick:
Like I said dads not complaining because so many more folks are far worst off. Dad is 48 years young and said there is to much greed in this country and it's a dog-eat-dog world
Dad thinks GM will survive, perhaps a smaller more fucused automobile company. He said future generations in this country are going to be less fortunate than he, and is scared for his grandkids. He said unions have lost alot of there power, because of trade treaty's like NAFTA & CAFTA has created a way for corporations to use cheap labor and import those goods. We both blame our elected officials for allowing this to take place. :mad:
If you are in the $60k demographic you should be driving an entry level Camry or Accord. Toyota claims the Prius a $27k car is being sold to the $85k per year crowd. I see so many people making what you are making. They are being sold $500k homes and $40k SUVs. They have to be buried in debt.
I can agree with you, however depending on how expensive your home is and type of lifestyle you live will ultimately determine how nice of a automobile one can drive if they don't want to be buried in debt.
Rocky
I can reasonable afford a $30K range car and still save and invest. :sick:
Volvo makes darn nice cars today. I'd love to own the new 07' S80 that's coming out :shades: GM is supposably going to build Saabs here in the U.S. sometime in the near future so that will give UAW members some work if they turn the brand around.
Don't cry any tears for me. I am more worried about my Son and daughter's future. Neither one can afford a home, my son in Alaska and daughter here in San Diego. I could get them into debt but where would they be if the economy takes a turn for the worse? Your dad is very young. He should take his skills and go to work in a small parts house. He would probably end up with a $100k a year middle management job. For those with anything on the ball, the Union will hold them back. The Union best serves the average to mediocre worker.
Lemko, no one can afford a half-million home and a $50K car on $85,000 income. It's mathmatically about impossible. I make almost $60K and a extra $25K wouldn't allow me to move up that much in lifestyle. I wouldn't beable to afford to heat the darn thing let alone buy furniture or make the mortgage. :surprise:
Comments
Rocky
Rocky
I see this as a red herring. You could use good materials and cover exposed screw heads without automation. The price might be higher, but nobody is saying "Gee, GM makes superlative cars, they're just too expensive...". GM does not make superlative cars, and the reason is not automation.
Short term gain equals long term pain. Higher sales now, but in a few years Saab will be in the homogeneous melting pot of all the other undifferentiated GM brands. Saab won't mean anthing different than Pontiac or Buick. Ignition key on the console is not going to be enough to differentiate the Saab image. "Born from jets" advertising won't either.
Strange, I drove one. Do you mean the car with the hard ride, hard seats, steering lead, steering wander, brakes that were a problem, cracking when going into driveways flexing the front cradle causing weldless areas to pop, huge A-pillar view blockage, and I'd have to go back to the discussion to find what things people had as problems that became recognized as not a good year for the VunderHonda? Oh, the ugle rear was a turnoff too.
As you can see I chose a better car at a same or lower out-the-door price and didn't have to struggle to get a good price from an arrogant salesman with addon pacs out the wazoo.
I drove a 4 and a 6. The 6 was even worse riding and driving. I realized I liked the leSabre better.
>that GM has benefited from a fiercely loyal customer base that refuses to consider anything without a GM nameplate
I don't agree with that. Most people do shopping; we're just not dumb and blind.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When they do build something they get the Dan Rather treatment from the reviewers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually, you didn't. (And Rocky didn't claim to.) According to GM's own US numbers: GM production data
-9-7X deliveries YTD Jan-May: 2,368 units
-For the month of May: 47 units
-Total US Saab deliveries YTD Jan-May: 14,396 units
-Same period last year: 14,354 units
-Net gain for 2006: 42 units
So, I guess we can gather from this data that:
-The "Born From Jets" campaign may have helped to sell a whopping 42 vehicles so far. That's an extra 0.8 cars for every state in the union!
-The 9-7X is sinking like a stone. (GM had better hope that they can break the 50 sales per month barrier that they set in May.)
If you look at overall YTD May US sales (Automotive News), Toyota and Honda collectively gained about as many sales as compared to last year as GM has managed to lose. I guess that SUV's-will-save-us/small-cars-aren't-profitable strategy is really working its magic now, isn it?
OK, but what about the last 5 years? Why still subpar?
I noticed that JD Power just released their ratings for customer satisfaction. Porsche was number 1. The best domestic make was Lincoln, at 11th. Ford had a few cars like the Fusion and Mustang. Nowhere was GM even mentioned in the article I read. What were they looking for? (and these are for CURRENT cars):
Porsche leads in all areas that matter most in the study including exterior styling, driving dynamics, and engine and transmission.
Toyota used to tout its assembly precision by running a ad featuring a steel bearing ball running along the panel gaps
That was Nissan for the Altima.
Well, Honda has two divisions and Toyota has three. I can easily understand what they're each for, what market they serve. I know that Acura is upscale. I know that Scion is edgy, entry-level. I know there are very few "nearly identical" cars between divisions. I also know that a Saab 9-X is a rebadged GM SUV (Trailblazer?). How does that help differentiate Saab's image as a unique, quirky, foreign brand?
It doesn't, as you surely know. It's the same badge erosion that has occurred across the rest of GM's brands in North America.
Let's take this Saab SUV. Sales so far for the year are under 2,400 units. (To correct a mistake that I made, May sales were 555 units, a still unimpressive figure.) At the current pace, this truck may generate 5,000-6,000 units for the year, which almost ensures that it will lose money for the division.
Now look at the rest of the Saab line. 9-2 sales are practically nil, sales of the 9-5 are down by 25%, and the 9-3 is flat. Like the 9-7, the 9-2 is just a rebadge job.
Given the sales of the SUV, its days are numbered, so you can bet that it will get cancelled soon enough. With that, what will remain is a badge with essentially one car (the 9-3) which can't compete with its rivals and generates almost no sales, and a 9-5 that few Americans will likely even notice.
It makes you wonder why GM even bought Saab. If the goal was to sell Subarus or GM SUV's at higher prices, it isn't working. The 9-3 is now bland, rather than quirky and different, so its sales here in the US are lackluster. You can't blame the workers for any of that bungling.
The upper management are the boogie-woogie bungle boys from Company G!
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
That's correct.
Rocky
Actually, you didn't. (And Rocky didn't claim to.)
"Actually, you didn't"? When did I say I did??
Rocky said, the 17% sales increase Saab experienced in the US and 24% increase worldwide was due to 9-7x sales.
Either 9-7 is selling like gangbusters or it is not; One of you two must be lying.
-The "Born From Jets" campaign may have helped to sell a whopping 42 vehicles so far. That's an extra 0.8 cars for every state in the union!
Yet, you are ignoring the 17% increase Saab has had in the US and 24% increase worldwide. Selective data mining seems to be the perfect tool for proving just about any wacky thesis.
Customer satisfaction survey is not the same thing as quality survey. GM has been scoring very well in the Initial Quality surveys in the last few years.
1. Car sales are seasonal. Feb-May is especially slow while the fall season and especially end of year is especially quick. It's farcical to extrapolate Jan-May sales to the whole year without seasonal adjustment;
2. Platform sharing is a fact of life nowadays in the auto industry. Porsche Cayenne sales has dropped precipitously this year not to mention last year the model dragged down Porsche's IQ survey numbers to hell. Are you going to say Porsche and VW/Audi management are even worse than GM management? With Hyundai CEO behind bars and former Toyota NA chief facing hundreds of millions dollars in lawsuit, one has to wonder, if the auto industry should just let SocalA4 take over the helm :-)
Tell that to ES330 and RX330 owners, the two biggest groups of "suckers" that propelled Toyota to the top of the profitability heap.
GM management destroyed Saab
Saab would have been long dead without GM take-over. One can not destroy that which would have been completely obliterated.
Dad, only had 27 years in at GM/Delphi and isn't getting the extra $35,000 like the media is printing. He will get a lousy $2800 a month over the next 3 years and then will get a little over $3,000. He's not complaining, but said money will be tight unless he goes gets another job, (perhaps part-time)
Rocky
Rocky
You may have answered this earlier but what kind of healthcare is he getting from GM? It's always been irritating around here because so many employees and retirees have total healthcare and there are so many of them it has caused the cost to rise to others with lower rates of coverage in our area.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
You might want to stop reading spun press releases, and look at GM's actual data reported to investors, for which I provided a link.
Pay attention -- there was no US sales increase for the first five months of this year. You're looking at a 3- month period that has since passed and without any background detail. The detailed and more current data shows that overall sales are flat.
Pay more attention -- Saab's US sales within nameplates are either flat (9-3) or falling (the others). There are no hits in the lineup, and quite a few dogs.
Do the math -- the only reason that Saab's sales stayed constant compared to 2005 is because this poorly selling 9-7X provided a few sales to offset declines of the 9-2 and 9-5. The brand is withering on the vine in the US, and replacing the Saabarus with Chevy Saabs is not going to help.
As Rocky pointed out, these sales only help because there were so few sales to begin with. When you start so low, even tiny sales numbers begin to comprise a large percentage of the total.
And you can bet that if the 9-7X ends up selling only 5,000-6,000 units this year, as it is on track to do (and roughly what I predicted earlier this year here) that it will have proven to be a costly failure. There was no reason to spend the R&D and marketing money on a car, even if it is just a rebadge, to sell so few units, particularly when it will just lead to more brand confusion and dilution. Bad, bad move.
Which really only makes GM's management appear more incompetent. What possible good reason would GM have to buy a dying company?
Companies that aren't capable of leading turnarounds shouldn't be buying other companies that require turning around. GM is a massive bumbling bureaucracy, not capable or nimble enough of doing the stuff that should be left to aggressive private equity firms who understand how to turn ailing companies. (And in case you were wondering, replacing the management team is generally around the top of the list.)
At least GM didn't put so much into Saab to the peril of Cadillac as Ford put into Jaguar to the peril of Lincoln. Heck, Saab-o-philes should be happy that GM put their favorite quirky make on life support for the time being, else, the make would've expired on its own sometime around 1990.
I'd say I'm one of those who are fiercely loyal to GM. That doesn't mean I'm blind. I do look at other makes both foreign and domestic, but always come back to Cadillac or Buick for they usually have exactly what I'm looking for.
Rocky
That is a dandy retirement for only 27 years. I just retired after 45 years in the telephone business. I worked the last 36 years under a Teamster contract. I only get $3700 per month and have to pay my own healthcare. I did not get anything for the 9 years at AT&T.
That retirement gives your dad, who I assume is still under 60 a chance to pick and choose what he wants to do. Most people in this country with that few years working will not get that much retirement. He was smart to bail out of the sinking ship.
If you are in the $60k demographic you should be driving an entry level Camry or Accord. Toyota claims the Prius a $27k car is being sold to the $85k per year crowd. I see so many people making what you are making. They are being sold $500k homes and $40k SUVs. They have to be buried in debt.
They had Swedish relatives they wanted to bail out.
The reason the "cheap" prius is selling to rich folks is the same reason some buy the bling SUV's/sports cars/whatever is in. They do it for attention or to make a statement. Hybrids that look like the cars they are based on are not selling. Honda learned a lesson there. Just like the GTO, the buyers of these cars do it so that others notice them (not in all cases of course). So the obvious Prius sells well. The other ones do not.
Someone making $85k can pretty easily afford a $500k home and $50k car. Yes they do have a 30 year mortgage or a 3/4 year car lease, but if they are fiscally conservative they do not need to have credit card debt or other debt. $85k is a lot of money in most parts of the country.
Can we have a moratorium on the conspiracy theories, please?
GM bought Saab because it wanted a brand presence to compete with the European luxury makers. Ford had bought Volvo for a high price, so Saab seemed like a bargain in comparison.
Of course, Saab was cheaper because it was a loser that effectively had only one car (and an odd one at that), so a lower price tag didn't make it a good value. We've already covered how bad GM is at buying other automakers, and this is just one example.
The Camry hybrids are selling nicely, and are absorbing some would-be Prius buyers because the Camry waiting lists are a bit shorter. The technology is beginning to make headway in going mainstream, which is why TMC is betting big on it and plans on quadrupling its production capacity.
They only make $85K and live in a $500K house? Do they ever plan to pay it off? Is that $85K total household income or does each parent make that with the kids kicking in a few bucks for utilities? Maybe the dog handles the escrow. Fortunately, I got my place before the market went totally psychotic.
So your theory is Saab was doing well under Swedish rule? That GM came in and bought them to have a European presence? What is conspiratorial about the failure of the Swedish market? There only two name brands were bought at fire sale prices.
&
That retirement gives your dad, who I assume is still under 60 a chance to pick and choose what he wants to do. Most people in this country with that few years working will not get that much retirement. He was smart to bail out of the sinking ship.
So u have to 100% of your own healthcare ? yuck and sad for all those years of service. :sick:
Like I said dads not complaining because so many more folks are far worst off. Dad is 48 years young and said there is to much greed in this country and it's a dog-eat-dog world
Dad thinks GM will survive, perhaps a smaller more fucused automobile company. He said future generations in this country are going to be less fortunate than he, and is scared for his grandkids. He said unions have lost alot of there power, because of trade treaty's like NAFTA & CAFTA has created a way for corporations to use cheap labor and import those goods. We both blame our elected officials for allowing this to take place. :mad:
If you are in the $60k demographic you should be driving an entry level Camry or Accord. Toyota claims the Prius a $27k car is being sold to the $85k per year crowd. I see so many people making what you are making. They are being sold $500k homes and $40k SUVs. They have to be buried in debt.
I can agree with you, however depending on how expensive your home is and type of lifestyle you live will ultimately determine how nice of a automobile one can drive if they don't want to be buried in debt.
Rocky
I can reasonable afford a $30K range car and still save and invest. :sick:
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Don't cry any tears for me. I am more worried about my Son and daughter's future. Neither one can afford a home, my son in Alaska and daughter here in San Diego. I could get them into debt but where would they be if the economy takes a turn for the worse? Your dad is very young. He should take his skills and go to work in a small parts house. He would probably end up with a $100k a year middle management job. For those with anything on the ball, the Union will hold them back. The Union best serves the average to mediocre worker.
Rocky