By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
But in this GM area the sense is a strike vote is already a done deal.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
Hopefully UAW members are wiser than UAW leaders and will not vote for the strike.
How is the feeling on the shop floor, Rockylee? Will the strike vote pass?
You got to have 27 years by July 15th at Delphi/GM in order to get the retirement package. If you don't have 27 years in by that date you are SOL and those folks which is a huge junk are calling for strike, while the guys like my dad that have 27 years in will vote no.
Bottom Line: It's a big ol' Mess. :sick:
Rocky
I believe the Delphi strike means the UAW has made a concious decision to put GM out of business.
I don't get it.
GM management is also at fault but I don't see what this strike will accomplish.
GM workers would have to relocate to work at Toyota or any of the other import plants that are in the US now.
And? So what.
Over last 3-4 decades many workers and management of US companies have been forced to relocate in order to keep their jobs.
Probably millions of Americans have relocated in the US over the last century+ to get a job or to get a better job. Why should auto workers be immune from relocation.
Then again, maybe the UAW could try to exercise its power by forcing Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai, etc to build their future plants were the UAW says is proper.
Well in 10 years that might happen
Rocky
As with most single minded import lovers your argument basically comes down to one thing; GM must be terrible because they are losing marketshare. Apparently no one seems to notice that we have twice as many brands and nameplates on the market nowadays. When GM had huge share in the 70s and 80s there was no Hyundai or Kia. The Europeans were small bit players who only offered luxury cars, Lexus/Acura/Infiniti didn't exist and none of the import companies had plants in the US. Every single import company has far more brands on the market than they did 15 or 20 or 25 years ago. 15 years ago there were no more than a handful of import trucks on the market and now there are several dozen. GM's cost structure and the increased competition dictates that GM had to lose share. Their own product decisions are part of the problem as well, but to say "GM makes crap because they used to have 50% share in the 70s" is a simplistic point of view that shows one's lack of understanding when it comes to the automotive landscape. Everyone in America believes that VW, MB and BMW make vastly superior vehicles to GM, but NONE of those companies have a share of their own market that is as large as GMs. If a successful company is defined by having 30% or 40% share than Toyota, MB, VW, Nissan, etc. are not successful.
Another stupid point "Toyota is about to take over the top spot". Import lovers and the press (same thing really) love to make this point but that is only in reference to global sales. GM is a good 10-12% above TOyota in the US and it will probably never get surpassed in this market. Toyota was bound to be #1 because GM sells no products in the worlds' second largest auto market which happens to be Toyota's home marker. Imagine how much more share GM would have if the Big 3 only competed against each other in the US market. It's really amazing that it's taken Toyota this long to get to #1 globally.
OK, not really.
That only proves that GMNA is most successful when there aren't viable alternatives available, and its significant market share in the past was largely the result of the lack of competition, not because it has stellar products.
It's simple: it just isn't good enough that GM products have improved. To be competitive, they have to exceed the offerings of the competition. Since their offerings are generally inferior, buyers go elsewhere. Why should buyers purchase a GM product when they can buy a superior product for a bit more money?
Everything you accuse GM of doing is done to a higher degree by Ford. The only area Ford leads in is use of 6 speed auto, which they bought from Aisin and ZF. The Fusion is nice, but lacking many critical features and 30hp. The 500 is nice, but completely underpowered and understyled. Same goes for the Freestyle. The Escape sells well, but is in need of an update. The Mustang is fine for the most part. The Ranger is a joke.
Chrysler? They dont even have a decent midsize car and they gave up on the compact sedan just as gas prices go up. They basically said they cant build a competitor to the Civic/Corolla so they gave up and developed the Caliber. The interiors of Dodge trucks (and the 300/Charger) are worse than any Asian econo car.
You feel both of THOSE companies are superior to GM? Please stop before your credibility gets even more questionable, if that's possible.
I dont make up stats, I got that info from a Bob LUtz speech that was quoted on the GM blog a few weeks back when he was addressing bias and ignorance amongst the automotove media. Kind of like some of the stuff I am reading here by people who try and bend the facts to conform to their twisted view of GM. I really dont get why people get so excited about basing a company.
BTW, GM typically dumps more of its older models into fleets to keep the production lines going. They did the same thing with the old Impala last year as they waited for the new one.
I would also like to know why so many import fanatics are so concerned about fleet sales. Honestly, who cares? If Toyota sells 400K Camrys and 75% are cheap LE models with wheel covers I dont see how that is any different from seeing dozens of low end Impala rental cars on the streets. Both cars are ubiquitous and boring. I dont see why import lovers get so much satisfaction out of knowing few Accords/Camrys are sold to fleets.
NEWSFLASH: Lack of fleet sales doesn't make a car exclusive. When 400k other people bought the same car you did last year you have what is known as an automotive appliance.
The G6 CONCEPT was a CONCEPT and thus many things you saw on the CONCEPT were not going to make it to PRODUCTION. I dont care what the press release said about the CONCEPT car, but you should've known it wasnt the actual car. If it was they would have said this is the "Production 2005 G6" not the "G6 CONCEPT CAR".
Am I making any sense? Read the press release you quoted for more on what I was saying. If you can show me where it says that car was an accurate representation of the real car I will admit I was wrong. Basically you are saying the car is bad because it's not the concept. That is just stupid. Concept cars always offer more styling and power than their production counterpoints. Get over it.
USing your logic the 911 isnt worth talking about because you and I cant afford it. It's a great car even if it's not on our shopping lists.
"Aura - will see, still too much under wraps; if replace good V6 with junk 3.5, no thanks. No wagon, no manual. "
The Aura will have 3.6L DOHC V6 and this is not new information. Why in the world would GM dump the DOHC engine in the weeks before production and substitute a 3.5 OHV motor?
"That only proves that GMNA is most successful when there aren't viable alternatives available, and its significant market share in the past was largely the result of the lack of competition, not because it has stellar products. "
What are you talking about? GMNA flourished because there were only THREE major manufacturers and they all had huge share. Toyota and HOnda came here because this is the biggest car market in the world and they knew they needed a piece of it to get big. When there are fewer companies there is always going to be larger share, I thought that was obvious. What you are suggesting is that GM could've maintained their same share by making great products but that is off base. The Japanese were going to gain share because they were cheap and gas was very expensive in the 70s. They had perfect timing and it wasnt even on purpose. Under those circumstances GM (and Ford and Chrysler) were going to lose share. Now, the question is whether or not they could have held on to more of it with better quality.
Why would I buy a ubiquitous, dull looking Asian car when I can get a better looking American car that offers virutally the same reliability, more space, innovative features (onstar, XM, remote start, etc), more value and a less arrogant dealer for less money? Please answer that. It is your opinion (not fact) that every import is superior to every GM product.
You should tell that to Starbucks, Home Depot and Best Buy. Your assessment is a wee bit inaccurate...
Cars are so good that the whole idea that "GM should build class leading vehicles that crush the competition" is stupid.
You should explain this to Honda and Toyota, that have grown their US market share, in spite of stiff competition. Clearly they have figured out something that your beloved General has not.
GMNA flourished because there were only THREE major manufacturers and they all had huge share.
Exactly. Toss a few Datsuns, Toyotas and Hondas into the mix, and everything fell apart.
If a mega-giant like GM couldn't preserve market share against much weaker rivals as those firms were back in the seventies, that says as much about GM's lack of capability as it does about these three hardworking upstarts.
GM is losing because it lacks leading entries in most segments. Customers have better places to spend their money.
Maybe I attended the wrong business school, but where I studied, we learned that insulting the customer is not a very effective way to earn his money. Unless you are a Soviet state store or a protected monopoly such as a utility company, in order to get business, you have to work for it.
Because they have a consistent track record of replacing good concept parts with inferior solutions.
That is irrelevant. I cant afford the XLR, but I know I like it a lot. The fact that you dont like big SUVS (neither do I) doesnt mean the GMT900s arent class leading
Roadsters and SUVs are just not cars I ever desired, so I'm simply saying that XLR and Tahoe/Escalade can be the best in the world in their class - I simply don't care for now. More over, since I don't care, I don't know enough to say one way or another.
What I care is a small & midsize sporty cars, both sedans and wagons with good manual transmissions and good engines. So far GM has not delivered ONE vehicle I might be interested in - Aura being closest in its concept form, but as I just said knowing their stellar record of decontenting I just will not say until I see or read about it.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Go and get it, your money, your business. I don't care. Leave my choice to me. I stay with my Subaru, thank you very much.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
hmmmmm, might be on to something.
"My point is that GM products arent as bad as people like you say they are, and Honda/Toyota products often arent as great."
What people like myself? God forbid I criticise a GM product. Boo freakin hoo. We live in a free country kid, GM isn't gods gift to the Automobile. There are much better choices to spend my hard earned money on than a depreciating peice of metal that I don't find interesting in the first place.
"The media, and many people here apparently, are bandwagon jumpers. The same experts who are so down on GM were probably making fun of the Japanese in the early 70s when they were getting established."
News for ya kid. I am not the media. Just an average customer who isn't brainwashed into believing that GM products are all that. Guess what, by the sound of things this ever decreasing market share many people don't think they are all that either and are turning to better products, both foreign and domestic to fill their needs.
Hmmm, wonder why that is? :confuse:
The rest of this post I don't get. It is quite generalized
and has no bearing on the original reasons why you attacked me in the first place. Preach that crap somewhere else. :sick:
Hey, ever heard of personal experience? Oh I get it, because I actually find some Chrysler and Ford products competitive, I am uninformed.
Really, you MUST be a salesman.
I'd give Chrysler products a chance if the need arises. I'd give Ford products a chance if the need arises. I have owned a couple of Ford products that were excellent. Durable, reliable and provided great service over the periods that I owned them. Never owned a Chrysler myself, but my wife's family swears by them. My MIL has a GC V8 that is about to turn 200k, and her mother has a Dynasty that is about to hit the same. I have a couple of relatives who swear by Dodge trucks and aside from bit of Recallitis, have served them well for a few hundred miles each.
For comparison, I worked with a woman who had a 2001 trailblazer that snapped an A-arm while she was doing 70mph down the highway. Later on the tranny went south because of something called a "sunshell" thingamajiggy. Along with the electrical gremlins she dumped it with about 37,000 miles because it was a hunk of crap. My wife has an employee that dumped a Caddillac CTS because the damned thing coughed up a tranny around the 40k mark.
Hey ask Loren about his Suburban if you want some other first hand experience.
BTW, a buddy of mine is a service manager for a B/P/GMC dealer. The horror stories coming from him would make your skin crawl, stupid stuff like windows falling out because they were put in with low-telp epoxy. Or suspesion components snapping on Trailblazer (20-tuplets_ because they are too short and don;t provide enough "give" over bumbs. And I don;t know about the GMT900's, but the 800's are supposedly notorious for rear axle failure.
Let me guess, this is bias right?
"Everything you accuse GM of doing is done to a higher degree by Ford. The only area Ford leads in is use of 6 speed auto, which they bought from Aisin and ZF. The Fusion is nice, but lacking many critical features and 30hp.
I sense a bit of bias here. What dig GM offer to compete with the Fusion triplets when they arrived? The G6 and the Malibu. Both are atrociuos for materials, build and comfort IMO. Obviously they are doing something right since they are getting something like 50% conquest buyers in the market.
"The 500 is nice, but completely underpowered and understyled. Same goes for the Freestyle" Uh huh. they are nice and I would especially add the Freestyle to the list if I were shoping for a Xover. But what does GM have to compete?
5 of the same damn trailblazer copy? Or the Cheapuinox twins? Sadly, the Freestyle offers better 3rd row seating room and interior materials/build quality that puts even Caddy's own SRX to shame. Give it a better drivetrain to compete with the Nstar and the SRX is a ripoff.
"Chrysler? They dont even have a decent midsize car and they gave up on the compact sedan just as gas prices go up. They basically said they cant build a competitor to the Civic/Corolla so they gave up and developed the Caliber. The interiors of Dodge trucks (and the 300/Charger) are worse than any Asian ec"ono car."
Look for the spyshots of the next Sebring. Looks like they took a page out of the 300 for inspiration. Gave up on the compact sedan? :confuse: 300hp SRT is certianly not "giving up" in my book and since when is utility a bad thing???
"You feel both of THOSE companies are superior to GM? Please stop before your credibility gets even more questionable, if that's possible."
Yeah, actually I do!!!
Yeah, that's right, we will see a new Camaro in 2010. And once GM actually comes out with a competitor for the above mentioned, the rest of the competiton will have moved on and Bob and the cronies will be wondering why America didn't wait up.
Question my credibility? Sorry I am not obliging you with the same praise for the almighty Garbage Motors that you have... I have nothing to prove to a Slimey salesman. :lemon:
Um, I don't have to answer a damn thing to this one bud. Both got low marks from C&D, MT, whatever. If YOU can point me to a review that actually gives a GLOWING review for interior materials and quality I'll be shocked.
"All Cadillacs have good build quality. I see you left Caddys newer models out of the equation when making your criticisms. No disparaging remarks about the interiors of the DTS and Escalade?"
Is that part of your sales speech? Nope, no disparaging necessary. Caddy lost me as a customer when I drove the CTS back in 2004. 3.2l V6 with a stick that was about as accurate as a shovel through box of rocks. Quick, yes, refined? I found it oddly familiar to a Grand Prix. At a price ready to clip 40 grand (At the time of the Red tag giveaway :surprise: ) I walked out with my head shaking and headed straight to the 330i and A4 3.0t. Almost ended up with a TL had I not bought a home instead.
So in other words, Caddillac didn;t get it right with me that time, why should I give them another shot? :confuse:
What? Dude, learn to read sometime. I gave you my criticisms. The G6 is a disaster IMO. It came out of the gate a disaster, it is going to go down as a disaster. I am not going to waste my time posting the same info I already stated. Go find it for yourself if you missed it the first time.
FWIW, I enjoyed my Accords, never let me down and offered a nice, precise 5-speed right out of the gate to keep things interesting. Peppy, OHC with VTEC and handled very well. Great steering feedback and control, something that Edmunds and C*D praised with that generation. 17 time ten best'er and I was proud enough to own a few of them.
With the G6 I have to suck it up and by a pushrod, and up until recently, I had to get an Auto only because GM corporate felt that enthusiasts weren't worth the effort to offer a stick. :mad: A tradition that seems to have carried on to the Saturn Aura... big mistake.
But dont; you worry mr salesman, in GM tradition, instead of improving it, GM will drop the model and come up with a completely new model with a fresh clean slate for your to mooch up to at your next meeting.
Meanwhile, you can buy something called the Aura "XR", priced in the upper $20Ks, if you want an Aura with that 3.6. A fully loaded Aura XR is expected to reach the $30K price point, which with no-haggle pricing is a HECK of a lot of money for a Saturn, when you think about it.
1487: The thing about fleet sales, you see, is they are bought in large clumps by people who have no other criteria than price. If 400K plastic-wheel-covered Camry LEs go driving off down America's roads every year, and yes they ARE everywhere, that means 400K individual people looked around, comparison shopped, and decided the best purchase for their hard-earned money was the Camry LE.
That's the difference. The other difference is resale, of course. Fleet faves depreciate HARD the first few years, which can be disadvantageous for people that tend to trade in less than five years, which is apparently 2 of every 3 buyers if an article I was reading recently was to be believed.
As for the numbers I quoted, I hope I remembered to link their source. I usually do. And that wasn't the 2000 Cadillac Deville, that was the '05 I was talking about. Deville, now DTS, is the rental "premium" car of choice at many different rental stores. GM can afford to discount them heavily because their development costs are totally amortized by now. Even the new "DTS" hasn't had much in the way of platform updates from the older model, and it's still FWD. So GM can still discount it a lot and not lose money on the sales, probably.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM screwed up way too many times for me. YOU get over the fact that I am not going to fall for the bullying tactics that you use to get your point accross. You want to like GM, fine, I never said that people shouldn't. If you wanna praise mediocrity, than be my guest. I am not going to join in the party for the sake of pleasing a few GM diehards.
Love your profile by the way
"I hope to enlighten all those troubled souls who think they know something about cars, but really don't have a clue. Hopefully one day we will rid ourselves of automotive ignorance among journalists and regular car buffs alike"
Aren't we riding a bit of an ego huh?
GM lost customers for life. Nothing you or any other diehard is going to do to make ammends. THis thread is about what people want to buy for their next purchase. Guess what? Most likely a GM product will not be in my driveway.
You call it "BIAS" I call it disappointment. PERIOD. Have a nice day Mr. salesman. :shades:
You CAN disagree about things without being disagreeable. The forums are not a place to play out personal disputes.
As for Impala being sold to fleets and Camry LE's being sold at(retail I think what you meant anyway) I mean I think Toyota makes alot more money selling Camry LE's to actual people than GM does selling Implala's to rental fleets. I personally don't care for the Camry but some people like it.
"I dont see why import lovers get so much satisfaction out of knowing few Accords/Camrys are sold to fleets."
Well resale value one since most people trade in cars often. With me I don't really don;t factor resale as a deal breaker. I like Mazda's and they are sold to fleets but I don;t really look at sales of rental fleets on wether I am going to buy a car or not.
Dude, I;m tired of hearing GM talking about bias. They sell more SUVS than Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Chrysler right and they are talking about bias. Come on. I am not sure if they outsell Ford in SUV's. They downright struggle in the 15K-25K compact and mid-size range and thats where where they lose most of their sales yearly. Do you ever see me constantly bash GM and say terrible things about them? The answer is no.
BMW, and Mercedes are not as mass market as GM is. MB's only one brand and they are luxury so the only GM brand you can compare sales wise with MB with would be Caddy and yes Caddy did outsell Mercedes last year. If you want to factor in Chrysler sales with Mercedes than I have no problem. Again BMW is not mass market they are a luxury so compare BMW's sales with Caddy sales but minus the MINI(Cooper.) BMW only has the MINI as the only extra brand in their line-up and that brand only has one car: the Cooper. VW I can agree with maybe as being competition for GM. GM's main competition for sales is Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Chrysler, Ford and maybe VW.
"GM is a good 10-12% above TOyota in the US and it will probably never get surpassed in this market."
I'm no Toyota fan thats for sure but Toyota's market share was what 8.5% in 1998 in the US? Now its at 14.2% so they have gained 5.7% market share in the US since than. What was GM"s market share in 1998 in the US: 28%-30% I think. I think GM's current market share is at 24% or 25%. If Toyota keeps their growing market share and GM keeps losing maybe Toyota can catch GM in 6-7 years maybe.
Ultimately, the success or failure of the new Tundra will then tell the story of who gets to be sales champ in the U.S., as Silverado/Sierra are still good for about 800K per year or more - don't know offhand how many of those are fleet sales, so I don't know how much they will be impacted by GM's new "just say NO to fleets" plan (which, after all, may or may NOT materialize).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I did a bit of math based upon CY2005 sales, and found that if you counted retail passenger car sales (not trucks or fleet sales), Toyota was only about 100,000 units behind GM. They're already within reach now.
And who knows what they will do later in the year, especially if they get a little desperate. Now of course, if the UAW does strike and they are forced to stop production for a while, that will change everything.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I know it looks good sales numbers wise and for market share numbers but for the image of the brand I think everybody saw General Motors as a rental car brand of late(in the past few years.) It was really lowering the perception with the buying public of the GM brand by selling so many cars to fleets with the exception of 2003+ Caddy and GM SUV's.
In an article that I saw a guy that works for GM said that GM was cutting sales to rental fleets because they had several new models that were selling well. In conclusion, I wonder if GM just temporarily stopped sales to rentals because some of their new models are selling well at retail.
The article that I saw came from this this board(Automotive News & Views)by the way. The thread is titled Are Fleet Sales good for Automakers I think.
I hope that the GM'ers don't try to find redemption in that bit of wishful thinking. Consider this: the biggest months for rental car fleet sales are January (which is during the first quarter) and July (third quarter), so April should have naturally lower fleet sales than the prior three months.
My guess is that come this summer, some GM official will be boasting about GM's second quarter fleet numbers being below those of the first quarter, while knowing full well that second quarter rental fleet numbers are always below those of the first quarter. (Remember if you read some bogus summer press release along these lines that you read about it here first!)
-- Total sales for YTD January-April were down 6.6% (-92,754 units) as compared to the same period last year. Car sales were down by a whopping 12.5%, truck sales down slightly at 2.4%.
-- Total sales for the month of April were down 7.1% as compared to April 2005. Car sales were down by 18.1%, truck sales down by 1.7%. (Do note that the spreadsheet provided by GM has a formula error in its percentage calculation. April truck sales went down, not up.)
Some mention has been made touting the alleged success of the Lucerne, but I have to wonder. If you compare Lucerne sales to the combined sales of the Le Sabre, Park Avenue and Century that it is supposed to replace, sales for January-April were higher by only 166 units. (29,122 for 2006 Lucernes vs. 28,956 for the 2005's) If the fleet numbers are signficantly lower, that could be a good sign (logically, it would follow that retail sales might be stronger if that's the case).
Lucerne does not replace Century. You should expect the LaCrosse to replace Century/REgal; Lucerne, Park Ave/leSabre.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nonetheless, the news for Buick is not great. YTD January-April sales for Buick cars are down by almost 4,300 units (-7.5%). April sales are down about 2,800 units (-14.7%.)
Sales of the truck-SUV Buick line are not much better. They were flat for YTD 2006, and down 22.5% for April.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Meanwhile, you can buy something called the Aura "XR", priced in the upper $20Ks, if you want an Aura with that 3.6. A fully loaded Aura XR is expected to reach the $30K price point, which with no-haggle pricing is a HECK of a lot of money for a Saturn, when you think about it.
The Aura is starting to remind me more of the Oldsmobile Intrigue, and that is not a good thing. I remember looking at top-of-the-line Intrigues in late 1999 that were priced at $29,000+. GM couldn't move them, because the Olds name couldn't command a price premium over a comparable Camry or Accord.
Saturn's reputation is based on friendly dealers, no-haggle pricing and no-pretense cars. Those advantages fade away once the sticker price goes north of $27,000. The Aura is a nice-looking car - although hardly ground-breaking, and it isn't any better looking than a Ford Fusion, in my book. But so far I'm not seeing anything really special. The most surprising thing about the Aura is that it's a Saturn, and it isn't homely. Great news for Saturn, but I don't know if that will get people out of their Accords, Altimas or Camrys.
A $30,000 Saturn mid-size sedan? Good luck, GM, on that one...
Both cars well under 18K,and no problems to sweat over.
Why pay more, and get less, eleswhere?
take care/not offense.
PS: we Might(Big Might) Consider the regularToyota brand, depends on next Corolla.
Honda: If they 1) Get the 3 door hatch Civic back, and closer to say tC prices(why is there such a massive jump,from a base automatic of 15,199, to 19,535, just to get cruise and sunroof? They add more stuff than we care to pay for).
GM: Fix the HHR: More room, better warranty.
Chrysler? Make the PT Coupe, like the one shown at autoshows.
Ford? Make the Reflex.
Look at it's huge wheels for vehicle size!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The aura revealed the NY show wasnt a concept it was a production car with the 3.6L engine. On top of that GM said months ago that the DOHC motor would be featured. End of story. I'm sure it would pain you read up on a GM vehicle but I assure you the details of the production Aura have been completely released on you can see for yourself.
It's best to say that GM doesnt make any vehicles that you feel are competitive in the narrow slice of the market that you are interested in. To dismiss all their products because you happen not to know or care about anything that isnt a small car with a manual tranny is absurd. I'm not in the market for an Exotic sports car but I still know that Ferrari makes a pretty good car. What you are saying is you refuse to acknowledge GM makes any vehicles that are half decent so instead you will plead ignorance and act like you know nothing of vehicles like the Vette, XLR, CTS-V, etc.
BTW, the cobalt SS and SS supercharged, 9-3, CTS and G6 GTP all have decent engines and offer manual trannies. If you are accusing GM of being wrong for not offering more manuals than many automakers in this country are wrong.
That wasn't the point at all. At issue is that GM has lost significant ground, and it has lost a significant customer base that it may very well never win back.
By any measure of business, that is a failure, plain and simple. A mass-market company that loses a large share of its customers and that has brands that keep customers away is a company with a problem. This would be true whether it was Proctor and Gamble, Starbucks, Walmart or GM.
For another, BMW and Mercedes still are niche marketers in Europe, although their niches are not as narrowly defined as they are in the US. Both market themselves as premium brands and largely avoid the low-end market, leaving that to VW, Seat, Skoda, Opel/ Vauxhall, Ford, FIAT, etc. There is no BMW- or Mercedes-badged equivalent to the Polo, Corsa, Ka, etc., and those cars that are similar in size to those, i.e. Mercedes A-class, carry a relatively high price tag.
Thank you very much.