Interesting. Wonder why sales of the Altima are down. Still one of few sedan which has some style and plenty of HP, while not costing an arm and a leg. Looks like Corolla and Civic is off to the races, as is Sonata. And then there is Cobalt and Mustang. Ya know this is deja vue all over again :sick: Ford and GM caught without the leading MPG cars in a gas crunch. Been there - seen that. In the full sized cars, I think the GM gas mileage on the V6 is rather good. Of those I have owned, I got more than the gov. sticker for MPG, and was happy in that respect.
I do see some Impalas on the road. Not sure how many are fleet. People seem to be buying them. If you don't care about bang for the buck, as in content of the car and safety items which are standard, then I guess I would consider an Impala if comparing to a Sonata. Maybe it feels like more car, looks bigger or whatever - personal preferences. Which of the two really last longer is a story which no one knows the ending. Really, both GM and Hyundai have good reliability in recent years. But, what is the lasting value? Japan, seems to have won the ratings for durable cars, in what most people recognize as reliable data ( yes, a long debate here on data - unreliable and blah, blah,blah ) Just saying most people, if by no other means in what they are buying, think Japan makes last longer. But, what about Hyundai and GM? This is the battle of the comeback kids. Both appear to be improving. Ah, but one is offering more in their deals. To travel ahead in time, what would we see? If the company which gives you more for less $$$, was the best deal, then it is a win-win. If the quality was really only skin deep, and not a true durable car, then the reliability is but for a few fleeting years, then past on to doom.
Which would you bet on for a reliable car in years 4-8? a) GM b) Hyundai c) none of the above ........... and why? -Loren
C - none of the above. Few cars are made anymore to truly last twenty years, so while they may indeed do well in the 4-8 year timeframe, they will also be showing their age.
That said, a few stand out. The Wrangler is s good bet - the 2006 models are pretty simple affairs.(new Wranglers - we'll have to see). The GMC trucks stand out as well - though especially their commercial ones. That said, I have seen a GMC C4500 with a pickup bed(regular cab, short wheelbase). It was hardly any bigger than a H2, though it was wider. So, yes GM *can* make bulletproof vehicles - they just choose not to.
Absolutely agree- the SUVs and big trucks of GM are definitely best in class- too bad that they were conceived and designed at least 3 years ago when fuel was not the big factor it is now. Toyota bet right on fuel costs, GM bet wrong. And it is actually the best strategy for GM to replace their vehicles that are not selling well with other GM vehicles instead of letting these customers go to other companies. At this point, if GM can stop their market share slide (much less increasing it), they would be doing well for themselves.
I thought the MAXX was dead, as in no longer in production for next year. Malibu was exciting in 1968
Me too! I thought it would die off due to lack of interest. I think Motor Trend is just guessing, or maybe GM will use the name (not a bad name) and attach it to something else.
GM includes Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, Hummer, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saab and Saturn. Ford includes Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin. DaimlerChrysler includes Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Mercedes and Maybach. Volkswagen includes Audi and Bentley. BMW includes Mini and Rolls-Royce. Toyota includes Lexus and Scion. Honda includes Acura. Nissan includes Infiniti.
Nice work collecting these figures. It would seem that Toyota is in 3rd place but has probably about half of the number of different models compared to GM - maybe even a third! Think where their sales would be if they had a whole sprawling line up of cars and trucks. Maybe not as good, since Toyota can concentrate on the models they do have.
I had the opportunity to drive next to a Pontiac G6 coupe today, with the G6 on one side of me and an Acura RL on the other. the G6 is better looking
is it a better car? I dunno. But looks are important.
This is very subjective and should be preceded by IMO because IMO I think the Acura RL looks much better. About which is the better car, I dunno either, but, I would bet $5 most people and automotive journalists will pick the Acura.
I do not understand your logic. You are saying drop the high volume engines on both cars. My mom bought the base LaCrosse and loves it. She does not care what engine is in it. It goes fast enough and says it is the quietest car she has ever been in. But if the 3.6 L was standard she would not have paid the extra $2000 for it. Whe would have gone elsewhere.
I saw a Lucerne today and it is OK looking. All the reviews say it is "quiet", "smooth" etc. But I really wonder what compels anyone to plunk down 30 grand for one of these babies. Not leading edge technology, not much fun to drive, not too exciting to look at, not great handling. I think it appeals to people who have always wanted a Buick, or they want something that is a known, or they feel comfortable buying American. Those are all good reasons for buying a LaCrosse but IMO I don't think that is a big growing segment of the population. Buick seems to be treading water just to stay afloat. They need something more dynamic to get Camry, Accord, Acura, buyers to consider a Buick.
17 Ford Taurus 16,786 20,502 -18.1% 83,287 92,879 -10.3% 18 Ford Explorer 16,717 19,539 -14.4% 77,205 105,925 -27.1%
Which product would you rather kill? If you guessed the one with smaller volume and bigger drop is sales, you underestimated Big3 management.
Good point, but I would presume Ford's plan is the Fusion will actually outsell the Taurus, and after all, it was time for Taurus to go to the big car graveyard in the sky. Rented a Taurus a few years ago and it's exit is long overdue.
"This is very subjective and should be preceded by IMO because IMO I think the Acura RL looks much better. About which is the better car, I dunno either, but, I would bet $5 most people and automotive journalists will pick the Acura."
I agree with you that the RL is a better looking car IMO. Also, I think comparing G6 to RL is totally nonsense. G6 is a compact sedan (not even in the Camry/Accord segment) comparing to RL which is a luxury performance sedan (in the 5-series/GS/M segment). There should be no argument here regarding which is the better car.
RE: G6 vs. Acura RL This from Car and Driver sums it up; But for those cross-shopping the G6 GT with the Japanese competition, the new Pontiac may possess the looks, but it still lacks the refinement and, in most instances, robust performance.
Go to the link for more info about the G6. Some comments are it is slow and heavy because of that old iron block V6; link title
To be priced "well under" $30,000, Saab hopes the SportCombi will ride a wave of rising interest in station wagons. "Things like the (Dodge) Magnum are sparking a wagon revival, and this (SportCombi) could take off," said Sean McNamara, head of marketing in the U.S. On the low side, officials with Saab Cars USA believe the wagon could account for about ten percent of 9-3 model sales, or about 2500 units annually. But in Europe, where wagons are the hot body style, the SportCombi could top 50 percent.
Hard to find actual figures, but Saab is expecting wagon sales to be at least 10% and in Europe possibly over 50%, and this is before high gas prices. IMO it is a sign of weakness when a company backs out of a market that could have potential, and a sign of strength when a company aggressively goes into potential markets...as VW, Saab, Volvo, Suburu have done. At least a 10% gain in sales could make the difference in maintaining sales, or sliding sales!
My point isn't so much to push wagons. It is the overall attitude of GM which gets really frustrating, when they just don't get it. It is like they don't understand what people want. Then, to make matters worse, they misjudge the market and place their future in large SUV's etc. ( and the vehicles they make in this segment are very good but it is a shrinking market), instead of developing more efficient state of the art cars in the biggest buying segment of the market, mainly the Corolla, Camry, to the Acura (or BMW 3) categories. And, although the Solstice is very nice, it doesn't sell enough to make a difference. It's like fiddling while Rome burns.
G6 is a compact sedan (not even in the Camry/Accord segment)
The G6 is classified as a midsize sedan, so it directly competes against the cam/cords. (Now how it measures up against those two is a different story)
It goes fast enough and says it is the quietest car she has ever been in. But if the 3.6 L was standard she would not have paid the extra $2000 for it. Whe would have gone elsewhere.
I saw a Lucerne today and it is OK looking. All the reviews say it is "quiet", "smooth" etc. But I really wonder what compels anyone to plunk down 30 grand for one of these babies. Not leading edge technology, not much fun to drive, not too exciting to look at, not great handling.
My point was to offer it as the ONLY engine - and keep the price exactly the same. Eat a bit of profit or make none - to get your best foot forward. It's the only way GM's going to stop hemmoraging. They need to make those rental cars that invariably get hundreds of people in them before they are sold off by the rental company - to be their best models and not their cheapest ones. In addition to the better engines by default, that is.
The truth is - the 3.6 itself doesn't cost much more to make. GM is just charging extra for it and the high-end suspension.
As for the Lucerne - trust me - the CXS - go drive one. The transmission, V8 engine, and magnetic ride technology, which is the most advanced active suspension on the planet - how's THAT for "leading edge" technology? - it rides like a completely different car.
IF GM only offered this model and dropped the price a bit, it would make serious in-roads against Lexus and Mercedes, which seem to be getting more plasticky and more expensive every year. A $30K(after rebates) CXS would drive a hole the size of well... a Buick :P .. right through the E Class. As it is, it's a DTS for $8K less. Not too shabby, considering.
And used - I'm seriously looking at one in a year and a half. $20K for a 2 year old CXS is going to be a steal.
My point was to offer it as the ONLY engine - and keep the price exactly the same.
I agree with your reasoning, but GM and other mainstream automakers need to offer high quality motors that deliver the type of fuel economy that these V8's won't offer.
I pointed out somewhere on this board that I recently spent a week in a rented Cobalt with the Ecotech 4 and four-speed automatic, and all I can tell is what an annoying driving experience these provided. Noisy and crude, with poor power delivery and only mediocre fuel economy -- the money saved buying it rather than a Civic or Corolla would be lost on depreciation and extra fuel usage. It's wise to have one motor that offers better fuel economy for those who want it.
The problem with GM and Ford et. al. is not styling! If styling were what mattered Toyota would be the bottom-selling car in the USA! Cause Toyotas are not pretty cars to me - they're beautiful! because you can drive em 200k miles and they dont often break!
Now try doing that with anything from Detroit. And you will hear people say "but i drove a Tempo to 980,000 miles and bla bla bla". They dont tell you the part where they replaced the engine and transmission twice and the front end six times. And basically replaced all the parts in the car for twice what the clunker cost em over the ownership period.
Only thing that will save GM is if they decide to make cars as good as Toyota and Honda. And they tried it, kind of, with Saturn - but how many people do you know own one, and how many do you see on the freeway next to you? Vs. how many toyotas and Hondas?
Ford i think is a special case, because the Ford philosophy has always been to sell the cars cheap and the parts dear, (and Henry Ford I said as much, in so many words!) and man oh man if you own a ford ,you will see how many parts you will be buying! Because they are designed that way from the get-go!
But i believe Detroit can save itself by making cars as good as Japan - they already KNOW they need to do it, and they have the expertise to do it, if they chose. While the people who run these auto corporations are greedy and merciless and think nothing of laying off 100,000 people and sending all their factories to China to raise the stock a half point - they are not stupid! So i am curious to see what comes out of detroit as they fight for sales.
J. D. Power does a long term evaluation of cars (if three years is long enough?). This is a random sample of the entire production, not a random sample of readers cars. I think it is as unbiased as it gets. In any case, Buick's did better than Toyotas or Hondas. Here is a link - a chart is found near the bottom: http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089
Maybe some of us are missing the importance of the dealer network and individual dealers in the buying equasion. My parents (in their '80's at the time) would not think of buying anything but an Olds or Buick at the time because they trusted those brands and loved the dealership and salespeople (and my Mom's '95 Buick LeSabre is purring with less than 31k on the odometer!!!). But Toyota and Honda and Nissan and many of the European makes seem to get the dealer experience better- at least in my experience. Even when I had problems with my Volvo (and believe did I have problems), the dealership seemed more caring (as they took my $$$...) I think that the Saturn idea was to change the nature of GM dealerships. Wonder if GM really understands this.
It's more than the styling that could help save GM but it's more than the styling. These '07 vehicles look and sound more refined than their predecessors. Throw in the availability to use Ethanol, where available, (big issue here) and it becomes even more attractive. Problem is how many people can now afford to own one now that the price of regular is now $3.00 and over?
The gas mileage supposedly is better than before with 15/21 and the Horsepower has increased.
I have heard from owners of foreign vehicles and they simply love the new Escalade, Tahoe and Suburban.
An issue with me is I'm starting to see those cheap interior plastics that Ford introduced several years ago on the '03 Expedition. I still have the Expy Eddie Bauer but have purchased a new '06 Yukon Denali. The interior between the two are worlds apart.
Another issue with saving GM is the cost of doing business with the UAW.
Good question - is three years long enough. If it is, a really safe bet would be the Hyundai Sonata or Azera, which would blow away the GM, including the Buick line for value. Last few years have been stellar for Hyundai. I always figured that Buicks higher score was due to the cars age, as in having plenty of years to debug the car. The engines are old reliable ones. I suppose it is a good thing to have an old car. The Monte Carlo is the most reliable of the Chevy line. It is old, and has old engines. I assume the cars are driven a little harder than a Buick owner would drive a car, so I suppose the ratings will never show as good. If I decide to go with an older type of car, the Monte would be a good choice. It is the last of the large coupes, basic platform they had years to work on. That said, the 2005 may be better and the crash test on the new front of the Impala proved less crashable than the previous year.
Best new cars are Buick too? I have no way of knowing. It appears to me the Hyundai, which is less expensive, is scoring the same in reliability lately. These are new engines. Has more safety features, yet cost less. The Buick, while costing more, will be good used car buys. They drop like a rock in value. You can get the DTS as the Lucerne for say $20K in a year or two = not bad. Maybe the LaCrosse is good to, in the it is the old platform, which scores well with JD Power.
Is three years a long term evaluation - NO. In the last Consumers Report, they have how the cars held up for the longer haul, some eight years. Honda and Toyota look like the best by far. GM did not do as well as Ford. Maybe we need to think durability, along with the near term reliability.
Oh yeah, how about the warranties. GM is three years, which is about a day short of when the serious problems start -- or in my past continued with my GM autos. Perhaps the new ones are better. NO way to tell if a GM is better than a cheaper Hyundai. GM cars, like the Monte, Buicks, Cadillacs may have that something extra in style or ride, but if you weight the reliability and safety, other do as well or better. I personally would only buy a GM well discounted, or used. Just too much depreciation, IMHO. -Loren
"GM quit building the Envoy/trailblazer XL(8 passenger extended) last year. That would be part of the loss in sales."
I doubt that vettee, they never sold any great number of the XL models anyway. I've only seen one on the road in my life..... I don't think that has any bearing in the numbers....
J. D. Power does a long term evaluation of cars (if three years is long enough?).
In a rough count of the top 3 in each category I got about 16 Toyota/Lexus models and about 16 GM's. Which is good, but GM probably has twice as many models It is a pretty good survey, but does it tell us the expense of the repairs, and does it tell us which cars will still be running in say 10 years?
Not exactly sure what you are saying but GM did not build the minivans way back when because they were concerned they would take sales from the wagons they already built.
An even worst time would have been not to do them over. the new styling, fit and finish quality and improved MPG has given them sales they would not have gotten with the old version.
I think you answered your own question. Not leading edge technology, not much fun to drive, not too exciting to look at, not great handling.
The majority of people do not care about the above. They just want a car that gets them from a to b with comfort. Has to be decent looking and do not care about "handling" since very few people in every day driving will ever do any "handling". As far as leading edge tech. Again, as long as the PW/PL/AC work they do not care. That is why the top selling cars have none of your above attributes.
I do not know how many XL's they built but they only built XL's at OKC. Even only 1 shift would be about 100,000 trucks a year. It is kind of tough to tell them apart unless you see the XL on the rear. i have one now.
So - GM eats a bit of profit on the 3.6 to generate word-of-mouth sales. The original 3800 wasn't much more expensive than the 3.8 it replaced, but it was a dramatically superior engine. And for the late 80s to mid 90s, it remained a very good engine that Toyota and Honda ended up copying(but then improving on to the point that it wasn't even the same thing anymore - while GM sat still)
The 3.6 is GM's ace-in-the-hole IF it gets up and does something about it. The 3.8 needs to die - especially since the 3.9 came out(though why they don't just make it 4.0L I don't know)
I will say one thing, though. Honda and Toyota don't break as often as GM, but they are almost as pricey as Mercedes now to repair. COnsequently, Honda and Toyota are great to buy new, but so-so as 2nd or 3rd owner cars. Too high a retained value and repairs once out of warranty will eat you alive if you need them. You could get hit hard or end up doing almost no repairs - seems to be random. The GM - yeah it'll need repairs, almost guaranteed, but they are much more affordable.
I'm surely not paying $3000 for a new transmission. That's what a clutch job for a Porsche costs - which is blatantly usurous - but it's a sportscar. Toyota and Honda are taking big hits in my book for this reason. I just can't possibly budget $3000 for a transmission. It just prices it right out of consideration. (Manual Honda and Yoyota cars are fine, though - the Accord VP is a stunning deal, for instance)
They just want a car that gets them from a to b with comfort. Has to be decent looking and do not care about "handling" since very few people in every day driving will ever do any "handling". As far as leading edge tech. Again, as long as the PW/PL/AC work they do not care.
Hey 62vetteefp, They should make you the spokesman for GM. You can say, "just plunk down your $30,000 and we'll give you a smooth riding, techno-dinosaur that will get you from point A to point B with sofa like comfort". As long as the seniors that grew up with GM are around, we won't worry about the next generation who might want some style, state of the art technology (such as traction control, all wheel drive cars, or extra air bags for safety), handling (responsive steering instead of that loose wishy washy feeling you get in a Malibu), style (Acura, Lexus, Mercedes) or at least have some fun while driving (VW, Honda, BMW). Our new motto will be "No, a lot of our customers don't like change, and GM will be here to give them cars so they can get from A to B the same way as they did in the past". "This ain't your father's Oldsmobile, it will also be your grandsons cuz we never change them." Or "Heartbeat of America will become, "The pacemaker of America". How about like a rock...fossilized! Just joking, getting carried away (hope you have a sense of humor).
I wonder why people constantly say "Buick should die!", "GM will kill Pontiac", etc etc
As much as I believe that GM's brand portfolio is overkill (and IMO, Buick is the weakest brand), GM's idea to combine Buick, Pontiac and GMC is quite clever. Not the cleverest idea, but still not bad. That means all three will have limited line-ups, and offer everything to the consumer. I imagine if GM sticks to their word, the Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealers would have:
Buick - LaCrosse, Lucerne, Enclave - all as luxurious as possible, hopefully with the first two riding on new platforms
Pontiac - G6, G8, GTO, Solstice - all sporty, RWD. Each offering something different from other brands.
GMC - Envoy, Yukon, Acadia, Canyon, Sierra - GMC's point is still a little sketchy but it does pull in money for GM, and lately they've been making an effort to differentiate in styling (eg Envoy, Yukon)
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe if GM goes ahead with this plan, they'll kill some of their overlap, without killing any of their brands. And, you can go to one dealership, and see a complete line-up, with plenty of different and interesting products.
They just want a car that gets them from a to b with comfort.
Not quite. If consumers want a reliable and reasonably sophisticated but dull runner, they can opt for a Toyota.
GM can't compete on those grounds, thanks to the years that it has spent creating a reputation for generating second-rate products that drop in value like a boulder off the side of a cliff.
Like the rest of the GM diehards who fail to see the significance of the crisis that the company faces, you fail to see that GM needs to be different and exceptional in order to win back business. Toyota can get away with making a lackluster appliance, but GM cannot. Just as an ex-con would have to work harder to prove himself to a new employer than would a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, GM has to be heads-and-shoulders above its rivals, not just on par, close to par or sort of close in order to win.
If the consumer is going to be dedicating $20-30k to a car purchase, the consumer is more inclined to go with a proven winner than a failure with a mile-long rap sheet, unless the latter makes it obvious that a new leaf has been turned.
The status quo is not good enough, and needs to be shelved ASAP or will we end up talking more and more about GMNA's retail car sales in the past tense. I hope that's not what you want.
Today's NY Times has an article on GM and sedan sales. They compare the best that a US nameplate can do - the Impala - to other sedans that outsell it - Camry, Accord, Civic. The upshot is that GM claims their strategy is not to beat any of the top sellers, but to conquer the market by having more models - they even note that Chevy has both the Impala and the Malibu. So one of the effects is that GMs sedan sales are spread around across Cobalt, G6, Malibu, Impala. They also said that this year Impala sales are down to fleets, at about 20%.
The article talks about GM and Ford's reliance on SUVs and trucks. It does mention that GM may have made a mistake in having a conscious strategy for the Impala to be a plainer looking, a decent sedan, rather than a flashy one. The article mentioned that just as GM decided Toyota and Honda were doing fine with plain sedans, and decided to make the Impala more plain -- the Camry comes out (2007) with a much flashier look.
My Step-dad just got hired on yesterday with Delphi. They told him if he was willing to learn screw machines, he'd probably be pernamently hired and will make $18 an hour. He is willing to take the risk ? Dad says Delphi with all the transfers will be hirring for atleast a little while. You work there for $14 an hour with no benefits. After about 6 months they claim they will keep the ones they really like according to a HR lady that told mt step-dad during his interview. So basically we are going to see a much smaller Delphi, here in North America. Delphi will continue to blossom after the final restructuring takes place.
If this is true, why are GM cars, which according to statistics have good gas mileage for V6 and reliability not selling more each month, while the Japan / Korean makes are selling more.
GM and Ford can not simply match on value and win. Why you ask. The market for reliable cars is already taken by Japan and Korea. The pie is cut too many ways. Hyundai is at value, content, and warranty leader. Japan makes are known for the reliability and gas mileage. To take enough of their sales away is not an easy task. You will need to be more cleaver, like offering different style, type of car like RWD at below BMW pricing, or character/class. Buick is trying to bring back some prestige with quite tune cars, but perhaps GM is skimping on that effort. Why is the 3800 the base engine on the Lucerne, heaven only knows.
Anyway, the point is, I agree that many people want and buy cars which are point A to B type. The days when people shopped around - kicked the tires for fun, with the family, seem to be gone. I guess some people still take the Sunday drives. I love to drive. I take it now fewer do. Now back to the point. Of those that like cars based solely on scores for basic needs and safety, they will likely just buy the familiar Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Nissan and such. And those looking for new value may buy Hyundai. This leaves one door open. The uniquely American cars. Once GM and Ford think they are going to top the market being someone else's car, they totally lost it. Even with short time success of say the Taurus, it was eventually a setup for failure. The constant copying of other cars, with a result of a two thirds as good one, gets old. Eventually you really screw up, like the attempt to copy the Infinity j30. That Taurus did not fly like the Audi 5000 knock off style. If Ford had kept to originals, like the Fairlane 500, nice mid-sized RWD car, perhaps they would still have something uniquely American. Same with GM. The new Impala looks fine. But it is looking now like a larger Accord. Where is the Impala of unique American style. Even if it sells a couple more copies this year, it is not building a big loyal base of fans.
OK, let's say you are thinking of an alternate to an Accord. In order for Chevy to win by offering more than the Accord has it all the elements, from standard equipment to warranty above and beyond Accord to win. That car is the Hyundai Sonata. Now you are competing with them. No, it just won't work. Offer the good safety stuff and equipment, but do it with new styles, or even classes of vehicles for the money. Or a little more money. Seems to me if the Monte Carlo or Malibu was once again a good looking RWD car, with side air bags std. and some good engine choices ( the 3.5 and V8 may work ) for say $21K and $25K, people would be more interested. Some cars which capture that late 60's sporty look. The current Malibu may be a great functional car, but a beauty she ain't.
Everyone seems to constantly site Japan makes as having boring styling. Well some are. The Nissan Altima was a hit and I think very stylish. Liked it better than the Passat. Well at least as well. The 1992 Camry was well done. Cars like the Accord and Sonata look good to me. They are not real standouts on the street however. That is what GM and Ford need. They need the extra bit of style and even some new ideas, like the PT Crusier was, to get things going again. Good, if not great style works for Japan and Korea. American makes need a bit more to get the edge.
To provide more confidence in the purchase, a better warranty would help too. I see Buick has the 4yr warranty now. A four or five year bumper to bumper would help. A little more style, some new ideas, a few more RWD cars which are gas efficient / smaller, and a little more warranty would help. -Loren
Drop the G6 and the Cobalt and make a nifty Nova RWD, and use the same chassis for the Camaro. Drop the Malibu, or make it a beauty again, and drop the Monte. One good mid-sized Monte or Malibu would do. Keep the Impala as the top line or if they drop the Chevy name, make the Lucerne the car to keep. Keep the Chevy name, move the Lucerne to the entry Cadillac position for large car, and make the DTS a RWD. Then reduce the size and cost of the CTS a skosh. Offer only the 3.6 V6 and charge $28K for it.
Was looking at Monte Carlos and Impalas today. None of the Montes has side air bags. I thought the latest thing was to have this safety feature. Come on GM, get with the plan And how did the crash test come out worse this year? Like the new interior work done on the Impala. The outside chrome is fine too. Just need a new car soon though to take this ones place. Impala is good in a Honda sort of way, which isn't good It is a pleasing style, but it needs to be talking more to the potential buyer saying I am the great Impala of the golden years reborn. Come on GM, we are waiting for the great stuff. Lucerne interior is pretty neat, and the exterior not bad. Still a bit too conservative, like the rear end, but we like the effort for something new at Buick. A little spark. Hey, Solstice was a little flame going on, but alas not many on the road. Production is low???
Was looking at Monte Carlos and Impalas today. None of the Montes has side air bags. I thought the latest thing was to have this safety feature.
This is unbelievable. GM has even lost respect for their customers. Selling cars in this day and age without proper safety equipment.....and who is buying them, the same guys who say, "Hey, I am macho, and I don't like need a seat belt either"?
GM claims their strategy is not to beat any of the top sellers, but to conquer the market by having more models
The old, fling enough at the wall and hope some sticks strategy!
Well it hasn't worked so far. What GM really needs is a few cars in the Camry, Honda segment that are slightly larger for North American tastes. These cars have to built with the best newest technology (most efficient engines available) and the cars have to be built to the highest possible standards. If upstarts like Hyundai can do it, surely GM can attempt it. From this base you might be able to develop an upscale model to go against Lexus and a few SAV's to go against Highlander, MDX, etc. These have to be the best designs GM has ever had. Must be universally acceptable because these have to be world class cars...people are becoming more knowledgeable in their tastes. Stop working on limited appeal sports cars and SUV's and put those research and development dollars into something worthwhile. Maybe Volvo, Opel, or Saab have some new ideas in the works, although they are also fading due to lack of money. I have never heard of a Camry or Honda owner saying, "Well it is time to trade in my car, think I'll take a look at those new Buicks".
I wonder why people constantly say "Buick should die!", "GM will kill Pontiac", etc etc
A few basic reasons:
-Excessive brands and nameplates are expensive to maintain. Every car and marque requires its own marketing, positioning, distribution, etc., which costs money and dilutes the company's image.
-Excessive brands can create customer confusion. A critical error that GM made was to indulge in badge engineering, because consumers began to see minimal difference among the brands, i.e. a Chevy and Pontiac now appear to be largely similar in the eyes of the consumer, and the negative aspects of one now just drags down the others. Brand differences have to be obvious and meaningful to the consumer, and when they lose their distinctiveness, they need to be repaired or eliminated.
-Brands are supposed to help sales and support relatively high prices and/or volumes, but the current GM brands are arguably harmful to sales. Let's put it this way -- if you had a car that was identical to a Camry in every way, but badged it as a Pontiac, it would probably sell in lower numbers and at lower prices because Pontiac's brand has become that bad. Bad reputations are costly to business.
We must have different views of high tech. I look at the top 10 car sellers and none have what I call state of the art technology. Nor any have amazing style.
Accord/Camry/Civic/Impala/Cobalt/Corolla/Malibu all have the same features available that sell. The GM vehicles have traction control included with ABS. None are all wheel drive. All have SIAB's available with no other air bags that I know of. I know many here think it nav is needed but nav just does not sell in under $30k cars. Go to the dealerships and look. You did not mention the stability control but again not selling on cars.
I would give none of them any kind of "style" points over each other. Perhaps handling can be discussed but the Camry is not exactly a handling car. Hopefully the Malibu will have improved handling in the next version.
anyway the point is that the mass of buyers out there are not looking for much more than reliable appliances that they are not embarassed to own.
The thing is that the 3800 is in production till the end of model year 2008. I do not know if the UAW contract actually requires this, but in any case GM plans to keep it in production for a couple of years yet. So, the production will have to go somewhere, and that somewhere is buick and pontiac.
I would agree with you that the UAW should allow GM to build whatever it wants to, but the UAW does have a contract with a lot of stuff in it as a result of striking every three years for decades.
As my link shows, the Hyundai Sonata was third in its class. The Malibu was first in that class.
While I think that Consumers Reports has useful information in it, I think that for comparison purposes, J. D. Powers has a better data base, that is statistically meaningful, and when they rank cars/makes their is some real science behind the ranking. The Consumers Reports strike me as being a beauty contest voting by subscribers to Consumers Reports. One assumes that most subscribers to Consumers Reports will own the best cars (Toyota and Honda), so how are they not biased.
We must have different views of high tech. I look at the top 10 car sellers and none have what I call state of the art technology. Nor any have amazing style.
This is from Car and driver about the 2006 Impala SS; Even at slower speeds, and despite the soft tuning, the front-strut suspension crashes over pavement imperfections as if someone had overlooked the advantages of bushings. It’s admittedly a minor annoyance but one that makes the car feel unrefined and crude and demonstrates the limitations of the old platform. The SS’s fraternal twin, the Grand Prix GXP, makes the same noises, but the competition doesn’t.
There are other limitations to the W-body platform that simply can’t be ignored or tuned out without major reworking. Those liver spots include the huge 40-foot turning circle that makes parking a chore — back up and try again. Also missing from the menu are a telescoping steering wheel, stability control, communicative steering, and equal-length driveshafts. The unequal-length shafts the Impala is saddled with would likely lead to into-the-ditch torque steer if the engineers hadn’t come up with ingenious ways of working with what they’ve been handed. You can read more at; link title That is what I mean by hi-tech. Using newest technology instead of trying to patch up an old body platform. By hi-tech I am talking about refinement, sophistication, having the latest in safety and driving features. This review summed up the 2006 Impala; Overall, the new Impalas are much better than last year's models, but the Impala has a ways to go in sophistication. It's from New Car Testdrive; link title and though they give the car a very good review it still is one step behind Camry and Accord. Check a review of the 2007 Camry at Edmunds to compare; Buyers shopping a six-cylinder family sedan will find a substantially upgraded drivetrain in the 2007 Toyota Camry. At 268 horsepower and 248 lb-ft of torque the new V6 propels the Camry with authority. It features Toyota's Dual Variable Valve Timing with intelligence (Dual VVT-i) to maximize power and provide a broad torque band. It also utilizes a dual-stage intake manifold and electronic throttle control, both of which contribute to fuel-efficiency (rated at 22 city/31 highway) while allowing the V6 to meet ULEV-II emission standards in California. Connecting this power to the Camry's front wheels is an all-new six-speed automatic transmission that can be manually shifted or left in full auto mode where, according to Toyota, it will learn the driver's driving style and pick gears accordingly. Go to;http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=109049 and see how they talk about quiet, interior and exterior build quality, refined and so good they can only improve it, but don't change it a whole lot. Most people may want basic transportation, but if I am spending $25 to $30000 I want the best in handling, safety, economy, dependability possible and I want the newest features.
We must have different views of high tech. I look at the top 10 car sellers and none have what I call state of the art technology. Nor any have amazing style.
You are emphasizing the wrong points. The issue for a company that is struggling such as GM is to figure out how to increase its sales.
If GM offers no meaningful differences, there will be no reason to buy its products -- all things being equal, the consumer will choose rivals such as Toyota that have better reputations, resale value, etc. Since it can't out Toyota Toyota, GM needs to offer distinctive qualities that can't be obtained from the more established competitors. Simply imitating Toyota, but with extra cylinders, isn't going to cut it for many outside of the rental car industry.
"I do not know how many XL's they built but they only built XL's at OKC. Even only 1 shift would be about 100,000 trucks a year. It is kind of tough to tell them apart unless you see the XL on the rear. i have one now."
I like you, 62vettee, your posts make sense and are informative. Thanks for looking up the stats on this.
That's about 10,000 XL's per state total, if none died. That's not much saturation, which explains why I don't see many. I can spot them, as they look out of proportion to me, they seem to go on forever.
Anyway, GM has bigger problems.... and as you say, the Tahoe will rob sales from the XL. Makes sense they killed it.
A LOOK AT THE BOOKS: How GM juggled millions GM's road may get rougher
June 4, 2006
BY JENNIFER DIXON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A quick look at the case
• Virtually all of GM's accounting errors worked in its favor, which industry experts say suggests a pattern that would concern regulators.
• Some of GM's methods were similar to Delphi Corp.'s troubled practices.
• GM says it has tightened its accounting to avoid future problems.
5 key players in accounting case
Rick Wagoner, General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive. He said GM's accounting errors were made by employees who either did not know the rules or misinterpreted them.
John Devine, GM's chief financial officer until this year. He told Wall Street analysts that GM did not accept rebates from suppliers, a declaration seized upon by critics.
Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer. His resignation in May came two months after GM disclosed a series of accounting errors.
J.T. Battenberg III, Delphi Corp.'s founding chairman and chief executive officer. He announced his retirement days before Delphi revealed a slew of accounting irregularities.
Alan Dawes, Delphi's chief financial officer. He resigned after the audit committee of Delphi's board lost confidence in him.
Following GM's latest troubles
Oct. 19, 2004: General Motors Corp. says it received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking records on its pension and retiree health plans.
March 4, 2005: Delphi Corp. concedes that it made a series of accounting irregularities and says it's examining its accounting for $237 million in cash payments made to GM and $85 million in credits received from GM.
Oct. 27, 2005: GM says it received SEC subpoenas related to its financial reporting for deals with Delphi, supplier credits, and any obligations it has to fund pension and other retirement costs for Delphi workers. GM said its finance arm, GMAC, received subpoenas from the SEC and a federal grand jury relating to industry-wide investigations of the insurance business.
Nov. 9, 2005: GM says an internal investigation of its accounting for payments -- or credits -- from suppliers finds an error that caused it to overstate its 2001 income.
March 16, 2006: GM concedes it made additional accounting errors.
March 28, 2006: GM says it has received an SEC subpoena in connection with an investigation of its dealings in precious metals and a federal grand jury subpoena regarding supplier credits. One morning in March last year, General Motors executives conducted a conference call with Wall Street analysts to lay out some gloomy news: Shareholders could expect first-quarter losses and lower-than-expected earnings to follow.
When it was his turn, Prudential analyst Michael Bruynesteyn raised a delicate question. He asked if GM had the same sort of accounting problems that were haunting Delphi Corp.
GM's former parts unit had improperly recorded cash payments, known as rebates, from suppliers.
"Our policy is no rebates from suppliers," shot back John Devine, GM's chief financial officer. He added that the automaker "had been very clear with our suppliers that we don't do business that way.
"We think our accounting is very acceptable."
But in fact, GM had improperly recorded rebates. It later admitted that its accounting practices led GM to inflate its 2001 income by 42% -- and by lesser amounts in 2000, 2002 and 2004, errors GM attributes to honest mistakes.
GM's books are now under investigation by federal regulators and under fire from some GM investors, who claim in lawsuits that they were misled. The investigations come at a sensitive time for GM as it seeks to bolster shareholder confidence and turn a profit in North America.
'A great deal of suspicion'
Federal securities records and court filings reviewed by the Free Press show a string of accounting errors that consistently favored the company and offered investors a rosier outlook than actually existed. While GM is not accused of any crimes, experts warn that if GM is found to have intentionally misled investors, it might face legal problems and costly sanctions that could devastate the automaker.
Some industry experts said they are disturbed by what they already know. Most troubling, they say, is that nearly every error GM has acknowledged helped to improve its financial picture.
"The evidence is there was a string of errors, all going in one direction, giving a more positive light to GM's results," said Charles Mulford, an accounting professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied accounting at GM and other large companies. "Simple, honest errors go both ways. Investors were misled, in my view."
GM said the errors were nothing more than a series of mistakes and must be viewed in the context of a company that had $193 billion in revenue last year.
Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, sees reason for concern. When errors fall uniformly in the company's favor, he said, "that starts to look like a plan; that's not a series of accidents. That would generate a great deal of suspicion on the part of the government."
Jerry Dubrowski, a GM spokesman, did not directly address why the errors tended to favor GM.
"There's no question that the accounting errors were embarrassing to GM, that they hurt our reputation or damaged our reputation with investors," he said. "We are working very hard to restore that reputation.
"Our decision to correct these mistakes was not at all guided by whether they were in GM's favor or not," he said. "It was to get the correct accounting."
GM's defense was supported by David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit in Ann Arbor that studies the auto industry.
The bigger, more troubling picture
Van Conway, a corporate-turnaround specialist based in Birmingham, said whatever accounting problems existed, they pale compared with GM's larger problem: survival.
"If the company doesn't solve its declining market share, how they account for a rebate really isn't going to matter," he said.
Dubrowski said GM has tightened accounting controls and changed how it records supplier credits. The company also has brought in AlixPartners, a firm known for advising troubled companies such as Kmart, WorldCom and Dana Corp., to help GM with a range of accounting matters.
Last month Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer, abruptly resigned and controller Paul W. Schmidt said he was retiring.
Since October 2004, GM's accounting has come under scrutiny by two federal grand juries and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has issued six subpoenas seeking records -- including records on rebates and price adjustments GM received from suppliers and its dealings with Delphi.
Interesting way to describe the data collection problem with CR.
Just as long as the sample size is large enough to be representative of the norm, there is no data collection problem. You're grasping at straws to refute the data, despite a lack of evidence to support your position.
Actually that is the issue-lack of verifiable data. I personally do not know why much of the data from CR diagrees with JD. It just does not make sense. There are some correlations like the LaCrosse. BUT, CR refuses to let the OEM's see the actual data or anybody else for that matter. JD sells the data to any OEM who wants to purchase it. I know GM buys the JD data and uses it for root cause analysis and problem resolution.
Well, Consumers Reports could very easily show a graph of what type of cars that their subscribers own - for example that 40% own toyota's, 40% own honda's and only 3% own a GM product of any kind. As far as I know, they do not do that.
JD Power sells results to its subscribers (automakers) for a high fee, while Consumer Reports sells its results to subscribers (regular consumers) at a lower price. If anyone has a reason to fudge the data for the sake of maintain business, it would be the company that is dependent upon its auto industry clients (JD Power), not the one that refuses advertising or auto industry affiliation (Consumer Reports).
Again, none of you have shown a good reason why CR is not credible. I've even posted the survey questionnaire, which is straightforward and neutral, so there's no reason to believe that one automaker is favored by the survey methodology.
Just as long as each nameplate receives a sufficient number of responses, there's no reason to believe that it isn't credible.
Well, Consumers Reports could very easily show a graph of what type of cars that their subscribers own - for example that 40% own toyota's, 40% own honda's and only 3% own a GM product of any kind.
They could, but it still doesn't matter. The issue is whether the sample size is sufficient, not the proportion of ownership among the readers. A large sample size is better than is a small one, but if the sample size is large enough, that's good enough to be used with some accuracy. The proportion of ownership isn't relevant to the usefulness or accuracy of the data.
Comments
I do see some Impalas on the road. Not sure how many are fleet. People seem to be buying them. If you don't care about bang for the buck, as in content of the car and safety items which are standard, then I guess I would consider an Impala if comparing to a Sonata. Maybe it feels like more car, looks bigger or whatever - personal preferences. Which of the two really last longer is a story which no one knows the ending. Really, both GM and Hyundai have good reliability in recent years. But, what is the lasting value? Japan, seems to have won the ratings for durable cars, in what most people recognize as reliable data ( yes, a long debate here on data - unreliable and blah, blah,blah ) Just saying most people, if by no other means in what they are buying, think Japan makes last longer. But, what about Hyundai and GM? This is the battle of the comeback kids. Both appear to be improving. Ah, but one is offering more in their deals. To travel ahead in time, what would we see? If the company which gives you more for less $$$, was the best deal, then it is a win-win. If the quality was really only skin deep, and not a true durable car, then the reliability is but for a few fleeting years, then past on to doom.
Which would you bet on for a reliable car in years 4-8?
a) GM
b) Hyundai
c) none of the above
........... and why?
-Loren
That said, a few stand out. The Wrangler is s good bet - the 2006 models are pretty simple affairs.(new Wranglers - we'll have to see). The GMC trucks stand out as well - though especially their commercial ones. That said, I have seen a GMC C4500 with a pickup bed(regular cab, short wheelbase). It was hardly any bigger than a H2, though it was wider. So, yes GM *can* make bulletproof vehicles - they just choose not to.
Me too! I thought it would die off due to lack of interest. I think Motor Trend is just guessing, or maybe GM will use the name (not a bad name) and attach it to something else.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Nice work collecting these figures. It would seem that Toyota is in 3rd place but has probably about half of the number of different models compared to GM - maybe even a third! Think where their sales would be if they had a whole sprawling line up of cars and trucks. Maybe not as good, since Toyota can concentrate on the models they do have.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
the G6 is better looking
is it a better car? I dunno. But looks are important.
This is very subjective and should be preceded by IMO because IMO I think the Acura RL looks much better.
About which is the better car, I dunno either, but, I would bet $5 most people and automotive journalists will pick the Acura.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I saw a Lucerne today and it is OK looking. All the reviews say it is "quiet", "smooth" etc. But I really wonder what compels anyone to plunk down 30 grand for one of these babies. Not leading edge technology, not much fun to drive, not too exciting to look at, not great handling. I think it appeals to people who have always wanted a Buick, or they want something that is a known, or they feel comfortable buying American. Those are all good reasons for buying a LaCrosse but IMO I don't think that is a big growing segment of the population. Buick seems to be treading water just to stay afloat. They need something more dynamic to get Camry, Accord, Acura, buyers to consider a Buick.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
18 Ford Explorer 16,717 19,539 -14.4% 77,205 105,925 -27.1%
Which product would you rather kill? If you guessed the one with smaller volume and bigger drop is sales, you underestimated Big3 management.
18 Ford Explorer 16,717 19,539 -14.4% 77,205 105,925 -27.1%
Which product would you rather kill? If you guessed the one with smaller volume and bigger drop is sales, you underestimated Big3 management.
Good point, but I would presume Ford's plan is the Fusion will actually outsell the Taurus, and after all, it was time for Taurus to go to the big car graveyard in the sky. Rented a Taurus a few years ago and it's exit is long overdue.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
About which is the better car, I dunno either, but, I would bet $5 most people and automotive journalists will pick the Acura."
I agree with you that the RL is a better looking car IMO. Also, I think comparing G6 to RL is totally nonsense. G6 is a compact sedan (not even in the Camry/Accord segment) comparing to RL which is a luxury performance sedan (in the 5-series/GS/M segment). There should be no argument here regarding which is the better car.
This from Car and Driver sums it up;
But for those cross-shopping the G6 GT with the Japanese competition, the new Pontiac may possess the looks, but it still lacks the refinement and, in most instances, robust performance.
Go to the link for more info about the G6. Some comments are it is slow and heavy because of that old iron block V6;
link title
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Hard to find actual figures, but Saab is expecting wagon sales to be at least 10% and in Europe possibly over 50%, and this is before high gas prices. IMO it is a sign of weakness when a company backs out of a market that could have potential, and a sign of strength when a company aggressively goes into potential markets...as VW, Saab, Volvo, Suburu have done. At least a 10% gain in sales could make the difference in maintaining sales, or sliding sales!
My point isn't so much to push wagons. It is the overall attitude of GM which gets really frustrating, when they just don't get it. It is like they don't understand what people want. Then, to make matters worse, they misjudge the market and place their future in large SUV's etc. ( and the vehicles they make in this segment are very good but it is a shrinking market), instead of developing more efficient state of the art cars in the biggest buying segment of the market, mainly the Corolla, Camry, to the Acura (or BMW 3) categories. And, although the Solstice is very nice, it doesn't sell enough to make a difference.
It's like fiddling while Rome burns.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The G6 is classified as a midsize sedan, so it directly competes against the cam/cords. (Now how it measures up against those two is a different story)
I saw a Lucerne today and it is OK looking. All the reviews say it is "quiet", "smooth" etc. But I really wonder what compels anyone to plunk down 30 grand for one of these babies. Not leading edge technology, not much fun to drive, not too exciting to look at, not great handling.
My point was to offer it as the ONLY engine - and keep the price exactly the same. Eat a bit of profit or make none - to get your best foot forward. It's the only way GM's going to stop hemmoraging. They need to make those rental cars that invariably get hundreds of people in them before they are sold off by the rental company - to be their best models and not their cheapest ones. In addition to the better engines by default, that is.
The truth is - the 3.6 itself doesn't cost much more to make. GM is just charging extra for it and the high-end suspension.
As for the Lucerne - trust me - the CXS - go drive one. The transmission, V8 engine, and magnetic ride technology, which is the most advanced active suspension on the planet - how's THAT for "leading edge" technology? - it rides like a completely different car.
IF GM only offered this model and dropped the price a bit, it would make serious in-roads against Lexus and Mercedes, which seem to be getting more plasticky and more expensive every year. A $30K(after rebates) CXS would drive a hole the size of well... a Buick :P .. right through the E Class. As it is, it's a DTS for $8K less. Not too shabby, considering.
And used - I'm seriously looking at one in a year and a half. $20K for a 2 year old CXS is going to be a steal.
I agree with your reasoning, but GM and other mainstream automakers need to offer high quality motors that deliver the type of fuel economy that these V8's won't offer.
I pointed out somewhere on this board that I recently spent a week in a rented Cobalt with the Ecotech 4 and four-speed automatic, and all I can tell is what an annoying driving experience these provided. Noisy and crude, with poor power delivery and only mediocre fuel economy -- the money saved buying it rather than a Civic or Corolla would be lost on depreciation and extra fuel usage. It's wise to have one motor that offers better fuel economy for those who want it.
Now try doing that with anything from Detroit. And you will hear people say "but i drove a Tempo to 980,000 miles and bla bla bla". They dont tell you the part where they replaced the engine and transmission twice and the front end six times. And basically replaced all the parts in the car for twice what the clunker cost em over the ownership period.
Only thing that will save GM is if they decide to make cars as good as Toyota and Honda. And they tried it, kind of, with Saturn - but how many people do you know own one, and how many do you see on the freeway next to you? Vs. how many toyotas and Hondas?
Ford i think is a special case, because the Ford philosophy has always been to sell the cars cheap and the parts dear, (and Henry Ford I said as much, in so many words!) and man oh man if you own a ford ,you will see how many parts you will be buying! Because they are designed that way from the get-go!
But i believe Detroit can save itself by making cars as good as Japan - they already KNOW they need to do it, and they have the expertise to do it, if they chose. While the people who run these auto corporations are greedy and merciless and think nothing of laying off 100,000 people and sending all their factories to China to raise the stock a half point - they are not stupid! So i am curious to see what comes out of detroit as they fight for sales.
http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089
The gas mileage supposedly is better than before with 15/21 and the Horsepower has increased.
I have heard from owners of foreign vehicles and they simply love the new Escalade, Tahoe and Suburban.
An issue with me is I'm starting to see those cheap interior plastics that Ford introduced several years ago on the '03 Expedition. I still have the Expy Eddie Bauer but have purchased a new '06 Yukon Denali. The interior between the two are worlds apart.
Another issue with saving GM is the cost of doing business with the UAW.
Best new cars are Buick too? I have no way of knowing. It appears to me the Hyundai, which is less expensive, is scoring the same in reliability lately. These are new engines. Has more safety features, yet cost less. The Buick, while costing more, will be good used car buys. They drop like a rock in value. You can get the DTS as the Lucerne for say $20K in a year or two = not bad. Maybe the LaCrosse is good to, in the it is the old platform, which scores well with JD Power.
Is three years a long term evaluation - NO. In the last Consumers Report, they have how the cars held up for the longer haul, some eight years. Honda and Toyota look like the best by far. GM did not do as well as Ford. Maybe we need to think durability, along with the near term reliability.
Oh yeah, how about the warranties. GM is three years, which is about a day short of when the serious problems start -- or in my past continued with my GM autos. Perhaps the new ones are better. NO way to tell if a GM is better than a cheaper Hyundai. GM cars, like the Monte, Buicks, Cadillacs may have that something extra in style or ride, but if you weight the reliability and safety, other do as well or better. I personally would only buy a GM well discounted, or used. Just too much depreciation, IMHO.
-Loren
I doubt that vettee, they never sold any great number of the XL models anyway. I've only seen one on the road in my life..... I don't think that has any bearing in the numbers....
In a rough count of the top 3 in each category I got about 16 Toyota/Lexus models and about 16 GM's. Which is good, but GM probably has twice as many models It is a pretty good survey, but does it tell us the expense of the repairs, and does it tell us which cars will still be running in say 10 years?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
An even worst time would have been not to do them over. the new styling, fit and finish quality and improved MPG has given them sales they would not have gotten with the old version.
Not leading edge technology, not much fun to drive, not too exciting to look at, not great handling.
The majority of people do not care about the above. They just want a car that gets them from a to b with comfort. Has to be decent looking and do not care about "handling" since very few people in every day driving will ever do any "handling". As far as leading edge tech. Again, as long as the PW/PL/AC work they do not care. That is why the top selling cars have none of your above attributes.
The truth is - the 3.6 itself doesn't cost much more to make. GM is just charging extra for it and the high-end suspension.
Wrong-aluminum block, all the extra cams/valves/etc. Dual exhaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Assembly
Per the link they built about 500,000 XL's in less than 5 years, so about 100,000 per year average.
The 3.6 is GM's ace-in-the-hole IF it gets up and does something about it. The 3.8 needs to die - especially since the 3.9 came out(though why they don't just make it 4.0L I don't know)
I will say one thing, though. Honda and Toyota don't break as often as GM, but they are almost as pricey as Mercedes now to repair. COnsequently, Honda and Toyota are great to buy new, but so-so as 2nd or 3rd owner cars. Too high a retained value and repairs once out of warranty will eat you alive if you need them. You could get hit hard or end up doing almost no repairs - seems to be random. The GM - yeah it'll need repairs, almost guaranteed, but they are much more affordable.
I'm surely not paying $3000 for a new transmission. That's what a clutch job for a Porsche costs - which is blatantly usurous - but it's a sportscar. Toyota and Honda are taking big hits in my book for this reason. I just can't possibly budget $3000 for a transmission. It just prices it right out of consideration.
(Manual Honda and Yoyota cars are fine, though - the Accord VP is a stunning deal, for instance)
Hey 62vetteefp,
They should make you the spokesman for GM. You can say, "just plunk down your $30,000 and we'll give you a smooth riding, techno-dinosaur that will get you from point A to point B with sofa like comfort".
As long as the seniors that grew up with GM are around, we won't worry about the next generation who might want some style, state of the art technology (such as traction control, all wheel drive cars, or extra air bags for safety), handling (responsive steering instead of that loose wishy washy feeling you get in a Malibu), style (Acura, Lexus, Mercedes) or at least have some fun while driving (VW, Honda, BMW). Our new motto will be "No, a lot of our customers don't like change, and GM will be here to give them cars so they can get from A to B the same way as they did in the past". "This ain't your father's Oldsmobile, it will also be your grandsons cuz we never change them." Or "Heartbeat of America will become, "The pacemaker of America". How about like a rock...fossilized!
Just joking, getting carried away (hope you have a sense of humor).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
As much as I believe that GM's brand portfolio is overkill (and IMO, Buick is the weakest brand), GM's idea to combine Buick, Pontiac and GMC is quite clever. Not the cleverest idea, but still not bad. That means all three will have limited line-ups, and offer everything to the consumer. I imagine if GM sticks to their word, the Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealers would have:
Buick - LaCrosse, Lucerne, Enclave - all as luxurious as possible, hopefully with the first two riding on new platforms
Pontiac - G6, G8, GTO, Solstice - all sporty, RWD. Each offering something different from other brands.
GMC - Envoy, Yukon, Acadia, Canyon, Sierra - GMC's point is still a little sketchy but it does pull in money for GM, and lately they've been making an effort to differentiate in styling (eg Envoy, Yukon)
Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe if GM goes ahead with this plan, they'll kill some of their overlap, without killing any of their brands. And, you can go to one dealership, and see a complete line-up, with plenty of different and interesting products.
Not quite. If consumers want a reliable and reasonably sophisticated but dull runner, they can opt for a Toyota.
GM can't compete on those grounds, thanks to the years that it has spent creating a reputation for generating second-rate products that drop in value like a boulder off the side of a cliff.
Like the rest of the GM diehards who fail to see the significance of the crisis that the company faces, you fail to see that GM needs to be different and exceptional in order to win back business. Toyota can get away with making a lackluster appliance, but GM cannot. Just as an ex-con would have to work harder to prove himself to a new employer than would a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, GM has to be heads-and-shoulders above its rivals, not just on par, close to par or sort of close in order to win.
If the consumer is going to be dedicating $20-30k to a car purchase, the consumer is more inclined to go with a proven winner than a failure with a mile-long rap sheet, unless the latter makes it obvious that a new leaf has been turned.
The status quo is not good enough, and needs to be shelved ASAP or will we end up talking more and more about GMNA's retail car sales in the past tense. I hope that's not what you want.
The article talks about GM and Ford's reliance on SUVs and trucks. It does mention that GM may have made a mistake in having a conscious strategy for the Impala to be a plainer looking, a decent sedan, rather than a flashy one. The article mentioned that just as GM decided Toyota and Honda were doing fine with plain sedans, and decided to make the Impala more plain -- the Camry comes out (2007) with a much flashier look.
Rocky
GM and Ford can not simply match on value and win. Why you ask. The market for reliable cars is already taken by Japan and Korea. The pie is cut too many ways. Hyundai is at value, content, and warranty leader. Japan makes are known for the reliability and gas mileage. To take enough of their sales away is not an easy task. You will need to be more cleaver, like offering different style, type of car like RWD at below BMW pricing, or character/class.
Buick is trying to bring back some prestige with quite tune cars, but perhaps GM is skimping on that effort. Why is the 3800 the base engine on the Lucerne, heaven only knows.
Anyway, the point is, I agree that many people want and buy cars which are point A to B type. The days when people shopped around - kicked the tires for fun, with the family, seem to be gone. I guess some people still take the Sunday drives. I love to drive. I take it now fewer do. Now back to the point. Of those that like cars based solely on scores for basic needs and safety, they will likely just buy the familiar Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Nissan and such. And those looking for new value may buy Hyundai. This leaves one door open. The uniquely American cars. Once GM and Ford think they are going to top the market being someone else's car, they totally lost it. Even with short time success of say the Taurus, it was eventually a setup for failure. The constant copying of other cars, with a result of a two thirds as good one, gets old. Eventually you really screw up, like the attempt to copy the Infinity j30. That Taurus did not fly like the Audi 5000 knock off style. If Ford had kept to originals, like the Fairlane 500, nice mid-sized RWD car, perhaps they would still have something uniquely American. Same with GM. The new Impala looks fine. But it is looking now like a larger Accord. Where is the Impala of unique American style. Even if it sells a couple more copies this year, it is not building a big loyal base of fans.
OK, let's say you are thinking of an alternate to an Accord. In order for Chevy to win by offering more than the Accord has it all the elements, from standard equipment to warranty above and beyond Accord to win. That car is the Hyundai Sonata. Now you are competing with them. No, it just won't work. Offer the good safety stuff and equipment, but do it with new styles, or even classes of vehicles for the money. Or a little more money. Seems to me if the Monte Carlo or Malibu was once again a good looking RWD car, with side air bags std. and some good engine choices ( the 3.5 and V8 may work ) for say $21K and $25K, people would be more interested. Some cars which capture that late 60's sporty look. The current Malibu may be a great functional car, but a beauty she ain't.
Everyone seems to constantly site Japan makes as having boring styling. Well some are. The Nissan Altima was a hit and I think very stylish. Liked it better than the Passat. Well at least as well. The 1992 Camry was well done. Cars like the Accord and Sonata look good to me. They are not real standouts on the street however. That is what GM and Ford need. They need the extra bit of style and even some new ideas, like the PT Crusier was, to get things going again. Good, if not great style works for Japan and Korea. American makes need a bit more to get the edge.
To provide more confidence in the purchase, a better warranty would help too. I see Buick has the 4yr warranty now. A four or five year bumper to bumper would help. A little more style, some new ideas, a few more RWD cars which are gas efficient / smaller, and a little more warranty would help.
-Loren
Was looking at Monte Carlos and Impalas today. None of the Montes has side air bags. I thought the latest thing was to have this safety feature. Come on GM, get with the plan
This is unbelievable. GM has even lost respect for their customers. Selling cars in this day and age without proper safety equipment.....and who is buying them, the same guys who say, "Hey, I am macho, and I don't like need a seat belt either"?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The old, fling enough at the wall and hope some sticks strategy!
Well it hasn't worked so far. What GM really needs is a few cars in the Camry, Honda segment that are slightly larger for North American tastes. These cars have to built with the best newest technology (most efficient engines available) and the cars have to be built to the highest possible standards. If upstarts like Hyundai can do it, surely GM can attempt it.
From this base you might be able to develop an upscale model to go against Lexus and a few SAV's to go against Highlander, MDX, etc.
These have to be the best designs GM has ever had. Must be universally acceptable because these have to be world class cars...people are becoming more knowledgeable in their tastes.
Stop working on limited appeal sports cars and SUV's and put those research and development dollars into something worthwhile.
Maybe Volvo, Opel, or Saab have some new ideas in the works, although they are also fading due to lack of money.
I have never heard of a Camry or Honda owner saying, "Well it is time to trade in my car, think I'll take a look at those new Buicks".
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
A few basic reasons:
-Excessive brands and nameplates are expensive to maintain. Every car and marque requires its own marketing, positioning, distribution, etc., which costs money and dilutes the company's image.
-Excessive brands can create customer confusion. A critical error that GM made was to indulge in badge engineering, because consumers began to see minimal difference among the brands, i.e. a Chevy and Pontiac now appear to be largely similar in the eyes of the consumer, and the negative aspects of one now just drags down the others. Brand differences have to be obvious and meaningful to the consumer, and when they lose their distinctiveness, they need to be repaired or eliminated.
-Brands are supposed to help sales and support relatively high prices and/or volumes, but the current GM brands are arguably harmful to sales. Let's put it this way -- if you had a car that was identical to a Camry in every way, but badged it as a Pontiac, it would probably sell in lower numbers and at lower prices because Pontiac's brand has become that bad. Bad reputations are costly to business.
Accord/Camry/Civic/Impala/Cobalt/Corolla/Malibu all have the same features available that sell. The GM vehicles have traction control included with ABS. None are all wheel drive. All have SIAB's available with no other air bags that I know of. I know many here think it nav is needed but nav just does not sell in under $30k cars. Go to the dealerships and look. You did not mention the stability control but again not selling on cars.
I would give none of them any kind of "style" points over each other. Perhaps handling can be discussed but the Camry is not exactly a handling car. Hopefully the Malibu will have improved handling in the next version.
anyway the point is that the mass of buyers out there are not looking for much more than reliable appliances that they are not embarassed to own.
I would agree with you that the UAW should allow GM to build whatever it wants to, but the UAW does have a contract with a lot of stuff in it as a result of striking every three years for decades.
While I think that Consumers Reports has useful information in it, I think that for comparison purposes, J. D. Powers has a better data base, that is statistically meaningful, and when they rank cars/makes their is some real science behind the ranking. The Consumers Reports strike me as being a beauty contest voting by subscribers to Consumers Reports. One assumes that most subscribers to Consumers Reports will own the best cars (Toyota and Honda), so how are they not biased.
This is from Car and driver about the 2006 Impala SS;
Even at slower speeds, and despite the soft tuning, the front-strut suspension crashes over pavement imperfections as if someone had overlooked the advantages of bushings. It’s admittedly a minor annoyance but one that makes the car feel unrefined and crude and demonstrates the limitations of the old platform. The SS’s fraternal twin, the Grand Prix GXP, makes the same noises, but the competition doesn’t.
There are other limitations to the W-body platform that simply can’t be ignored or tuned out without major reworking. Those liver spots include the huge 40-foot turning circle that makes parking a chore — back up and try again. Also missing from the menu are a telescoping steering wheel, stability control, communicative steering, and equal-length driveshafts. The unequal-length shafts the Impala is saddled with would likely lead to into-the-ditch torque steer if the engineers hadn’t come up with ingenious ways of working with what they’ve been handed.
You can read more at;
link title
That is what I mean by hi-tech. Using newest technology instead of trying to patch up an old body platform.
By hi-tech I am talking about refinement, sophistication, having the latest in safety and driving features.
This review summed up the 2006 Impala;
Overall, the new Impalas are much better than last year's models, but the Impala has a ways to go in sophistication. It's from New Car Testdrive;
link title
and though they give the car a very good review it still is one step behind Camry and Accord.
Check a review of the 2007 Camry at Edmunds to compare;
Buyers shopping a six-cylinder family sedan will find a substantially upgraded drivetrain in the 2007 Toyota Camry. At 268 horsepower and 248 lb-ft of torque the new V6 propels the Camry with authority. It features Toyota's Dual Variable Valve Timing with intelligence (Dual VVT-i) to maximize power and provide a broad torque band. It also utilizes a dual-stage intake manifold and electronic throttle control, both of which contribute to fuel-efficiency (rated at 22 city/31 highway) while allowing the V6 to meet ULEV-II emission standards in California. Connecting this power to the Camry's front wheels is an all-new six-speed automatic transmission that can be manually shifted or left in full auto mode where, according to Toyota, it will learn the driver's driving style and pick gears accordingly.
Go to;http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=109049 and see how they talk about quiet, interior and exterior build quality, refined and so good they can only improve it, but don't change it a whole lot.
Most people may want basic transportation, but if I am spending $25 to $30000 I want the best in handling, safety, economy, dependability possible and I want the newest features.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
You are emphasizing the wrong points. The issue for a company that is struggling such as GM is to figure out how to increase its sales.
If GM offers no meaningful differences, there will be no reason to buy its products -- all things being equal, the consumer will choose rivals such as Toyota that have better reputations, resale value, etc. Since it can't out Toyota Toyota, GM needs to offer distinctive qualities that can't be obtained from the more established competitors. Simply imitating Toyota, but with extra cylinders, isn't going to cut it for many outside of the rental car industry.
I like you, 62vettee, your posts make sense and are informative. Thanks for looking up the stats on this.
That's about 10,000 XL's per state total, if none died. That's not much saturation, which explains why I don't see many. I can spot them, as they look out of proportion to me, they seem to go on forever.
Anyway, GM has bigger problems.... and as you say, the Tahoe will rob sales from the XL. Makes sense they killed it.
June 4, 2006
BY JENNIFER DIXON
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A quick look at the case
• Virtually all of GM's accounting errors worked in its favor, which industry experts say suggests a pattern that would concern regulators.
• Some of GM's methods were similar to Delphi Corp.'s troubled practices.
• GM says it has tightened its accounting to avoid future problems.
5 key players in accounting case
Rick Wagoner, General Motors Corp. chairman and chief executive. He said GM's accounting errors were made by employees who either did not know the rules or misinterpreted them.
John Devine, GM's chief financial officer until this year. He told Wall Street analysts that GM did not accept rebates from suppliers, a declaration seized upon by critics.
Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer. His resignation in May came two months after GM disclosed a series of accounting errors.
J.T. Battenberg III, Delphi Corp.'s founding chairman and chief executive officer. He announced his retirement days before Delphi revealed a slew of accounting irregularities.
Alan Dawes, Delphi's chief financial officer. He resigned after the audit committee of Delphi's board lost confidence in him.
Following GM's latest troubles
Oct. 19, 2004: General Motors Corp. says it received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking records on its pension and retiree health plans.
March 4, 2005: Delphi Corp. concedes that it made a series of accounting irregularities and says it's examining its accounting for $237 million in cash payments made to GM and $85 million in credits received from GM.
Oct. 27, 2005: GM says it received SEC subpoenas related to its financial reporting for deals with Delphi, supplier credits, and any obligations it has to fund pension and other retirement costs for Delphi workers. GM said its finance arm, GMAC, received subpoenas from the SEC and a federal grand jury relating to industry-wide investigations of the insurance business.
Nov. 9, 2005: GM says an internal investigation of its accounting for payments -- or credits -- from suppliers finds an error that caused it to overstate its 2001 income.
March 16, 2006: GM concedes it made additional accounting errors.
March 28, 2006: GM says it has received an SEC subpoena in connection with an investigation of its dealings in precious metals and a federal grand jury subpoena regarding supplier credits.
One morning in March last year, General Motors executives conducted a conference call with Wall Street analysts to lay out some gloomy news: Shareholders could expect first-quarter losses and lower-than-expected earnings to follow.
When it was his turn, Prudential analyst Michael Bruynesteyn raised a delicate question. He asked if GM had the same sort of accounting problems that were haunting Delphi Corp.
GM's former parts unit had improperly recorded cash payments, known as rebates, from suppliers.
"Our policy is no rebates from suppliers," shot back John Devine, GM's chief financial officer. He added that the automaker "had been very clear with our suppliers that we don't do business that way.
"We think our accounting is very acceptable."
But in fact, GM had improperly recorded rebates. It later admitted that its accounting practices led GM to inflate its 2001 income by 42% -- and by lesser amounts in 2000, 2002 and 2004, errors GM attributes to honest mistakes.
GM's books are now under investigation by federal regulators and under fire from some GM investors, who claim in lawsuits that they were misled. The investigations come at a sensitive time for GM as it seeks to bolster shareholder confidence and turn a profit in North America.
'A great deal of suspicion'
Federal securities records and court filings reviewed by the Free Press show a string of accounting errors that consistently favored the company and offered investors a rosier outlook than actually existed. While GM is not accused of any crimes, experts warn that if GM is found to have intentionally misled investors, it might face legal problems and costly sanctions that could devastate the automaker.
Some industry experts said they are disturbed by what they already know. Most troubling, they say, is that nearly every error GM has acknowledged helped to improve its financial picture.
"The evidence is there was a string of errors, all going in one direction, giving a more positive light to GM's results," said Charles Mulford, an accounting professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has studied accounting at GM and other large companies. "Simple, honest errors go both ways. Investors were misled, in my view."
GM said the errors were nothing more than a series of mistakes and must be viewed in the context of a company that had $193 billion in revenue last year.
Peter Henning, a Wayne State University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, sees reason for concern. When errors fall uniformly in the company's favor, he said, "that starts to look like a plan; that's not a series of accidents. That would generate a great deal of suspicion on the part of the government."
Jerry Dubrowski, a GM spokesman, did not directly address why the errors tended to favor GM.
"There's no question that the accounting errors were embarrassing to GM, that they hurt our reputation or damaged our reputation with investors," he said. "We are working very hard to restore that reputation.
"Our decision to correct these mistakes was not at all guided by whether they were in GM's favor or not," he said. "It was to get the correct accounting."
GM's defense was supported by David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a nonprofit in Ann Arbor that studies the auto industry.
The bigger, more troubling picture
Van Conway, a corporate-turnaround specialist based in Birmingham, said whatever accounting problems existed, they pale compared with GM's larger problem: survival.
"If the company doesn't solve its declining market share, how they account for a rebate really isn't going to matter," he said.
Dubrowski said GM has tightened accounting controls and changed how it records supplier credits. The company also has brought in AlixPartners, a firm known for advising troubled companies such as Kmart, WorldCom and Dana Corp., to help GM with a range of accounting matters.
Last month Peter Bible, GM's chief accounting officer, abruptly resigned and controller Paul W. Schmidt said he was retiring.
Since October 2004, GM's accounting has come under scrutiny by two federal grand juries and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has issued six subpoenas seeking records -- including records on rebates and price adjustments GM received from suppliers and its dealings with Delphi.
Sue
Interesting way to describe the data collection problem with CR. Good point.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just as long as the sample size is large enough to be representative of the norm, there is no data collection problem. You're grasping at straws to refute the data, despite a lack of evidence to support your position.
Again, none of you have shown a good reason why CR is not credible. I've even posted the survey questionnaire, which is straightforward and neutral, so there's no reason to believe that one automaker is favored by the survey methodology.
Just as long as each nameplate receives a sufficient number of responses, there's no reason to believe that it isn't credible.
They could, but it still doesn't matter. The issue is whether the sample size is sufficient, not the proportion of ownership among the readers. A large sample size is better than is a small one, but if the sample size is large enough, that's good enough to be used with some accuracy. The proportion of ownership isn't relevant to the usefulness or accuracy of the data.