Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As much as one might want to think the Cobalt is the equal of or superior to the Civic/Corolla the plain truth is that it is not bringing people over to GM. It is obviously superior to the Cavalier it replaced by any measure you could put on it yet the sales remain stagnant.
I think the new Malibu is exactly the type of thing that GM needs. Differentiate it as much as possible from the Aura so as to avoid yet another GM competing against itself and you have a start. Then you have to do the same thing for the compact crowd.
I would LOVE to buy a GM product but they are only now getting interesting in the market that I buy (I currently have an Accord and an Odyssey - the Aura and later Malibu could get me going). I lament that rather than building a competitive product tehy are abandoning the minivan market. There is nothing that GM makes that suits a family of six that does not want to blow the budget on gas.
I think I see them mostly moving in the right direction but largely in segments that I don't buy in. When you consider the size and supposed diversity of product that is a shame.
Oh, as long as I am here ...... I wish they hadn't bought Saab. Saab has always been a niche player. GM doesn't know what to do with it and I fear now they may have trouble finding a buyer.
Will the new Tundra cause a market shift in the largest sales class?
Will E85 trump Hydrids?
Will GM take on Chrysler, and boil it down to the bare essentials?
Will Toyota take on Subaru?
Inquiring minds want to know!
DrFill
Anyway, as a pickup truckin American; the new Tundra is the bomb. Pure and simple. The competition has deferred to picking on the Tundra for 3 (yes 3) imperfections:
1) poor gas mileage
2) cheap interior
3) rumors of faulty fuel gauges
I say:
1) show me a big truck that gets good gas mileage.
2) I must be blind, the interior looks great to me.
3) if the fuel gauges are faulty, they will replace them.
All that said, I still think GM and Ford (Dodge too) will be just fine in the end. But, Toyota is gonna surge on this truck. The Big 3 is gonna have to get used to the Big 4. Toyota is simply making a move, a good move at the Big 3 in the truck market. I don't think Toyota is even thinking about Subaru.
just my .02
One point missed by a number of folks. The thought of GM buying Chrysler just to dump it might satisfy a lustful desire to validate a GM-lovers self derived superiority, but buying a competitor to eliminate competition will not guarantee that 1.4 million buyers will flood to GM showrooms for their next vehicle.
In addition, GM would kill about $900 million worth of supplier business to Chrysler, who is GM best customer for component parts (radiators, heater cores, emissions parts, steering columns, front suspension, electrical parts, and rear axles for Dodge trucks, etc.)
Besides, a company that been losing billions of dollars, then buys another car company, isn't going to elicit much sympathy if things continue to go sour.
I think the rumor was based on talks GM and Chrysler have been having regarding a joint venture of a nature so far not speculated by the media. And i don't think it was the much rumored sharing of a SUV platform, either.
Dusty
Buyers have shown that interior is not a factor. you are selling to dudes, old-school men, who just want size and power, and that's it! And Toyota is the one holding the Gold!
Now that GM has finally come up with a decent interior, after DECADES OF DRECK, now Toyota is a scrub? I don't think so! :confuse: .
DrFill
My point being, GM has nothing to worry about, Chrysler is teetering on the edge of the abyss and Ford has just about had it. GM just needs to hang in there another year or three, and it will have all the domestic buyers for itself.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM will lose the title of global sales leader to Toyota this year or next, I believe that is set in stone. GM can't avert that outcome now - it doesn't compete anywhere near as well as Toyota does in most other markets, and Toyota is on a major roll, that should last just long enough for them to get firmly into the #1 seat. Whether Toyota can keep it will depend on them getting a very firm grip on quality control, in order to maintain their excellent reliability and rep for quality. Without the quality, they are just a big company with decent but largely uninspiring vehicles. They say they are committed to turning all that around, we will see. I know they do not make statements like that lightly.
In the U.S., GM will dominate the market into the foreseeable future. And despite what all the Toyota fans say (and I am one myself, for the most part), the Tundra will not dent Silverado and F-150 sales much. Doc - "holding the gold"?? Come on! Tundra has a tiny power and capacity advantage that I suspect Chevy will be quick to match, and let's not forget that GM still has diesels, 1-ton models, etc etc.
The race I follow, which I feel is more telling and much much closer than overall sales, is annual RETAIL sales. GM is still ahead there too, but Toyota is closing with every passing year. I wonder if we will see Toyota take the retail domestic lead by 2010. I don't think it likely, but it could happen. The trend is certainly in that direction.
Oh, and BTW, "will E85 trump hybrids"? I think 50-state ULEV diesel will eventually trump them both. At least until we really get our act together with hydrogen-powered electric powertrains, which despite the constant optimism and pronouncements from carmakers are still a decade or two out for mass consumption, I think. But look who's ahead on that front - I will give you a hint, it's not Toyota, Look to Honda, GM, and BMW for the most advancements on that front.
Lately, in Toyota's major sales push of the last five years, we have seen some disappointing outcomes, among them quality problems, a rush to the middle of the market with safe and boring appliance models, and a loss of leadership in technological innovation. It's like they are sitting on their laurels with their HSD program on the last count.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They bought into Subaru so they could use Subaru's underutilized plant in Indiana to build Camrys, as Camrys are in short supply. I believe the first Camry will come off the Indiana line this summer, IIRC.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
take care/not offense.
GM and Ford ...#'s 1 and 2
We have had the Astras down under for ages.
They are not to bad, turbo versions are very good.
Go to the holden.com.au site for a peek.
Also check out the hotter version at hsv.com.au.
Cheers.
ps. Astra is made in Spain by Opel.
Either way, Toyota taking top spot in sales worldwide is practically a given. Whether they can stay that way or whether the Koreans and other Japanese companies start stealing some of their market share remains to be seen. There are certainly a number of market areas where Toyota is vulnerable. For GM/Ford/Dodge, extensive work on vehicles outside of trucks is required for survival.
What I'm likening it to is the 1992 Camry, which was what changed the Camry, and Toyota itself.
If the Tundra goes from 125k last year to 400k in 2010, which I think is definitely possible, it will be because of the appeal of this redesign. I am not so sure that the Silvy/Sierra are prepared to slow doen any acceleration in Tundra brand awareness, or sales.
My point is the Gm is good, but not good enough to keep domestic-intenders from giving it a hard look, and that's what Toyota wants to accomplish. Get people in who normally wouldn't make Toyota traffic.
Another factor is that when Ford and Dodge release their new trucks in 18 months, will the target the Silvy or the Tundra? I think we may already know the answer.
But you are right, Dodge and Ford will be the main losers for the next 18 months.
DrFill
DrFill
They should share technology though, that would make good business sense. In particular technology for hybrids, alternative fuels, and design implications for drivetrains.
Of course we do - the answer is the Chevy, right? If you think anything else, you may have an unrealistic view of the full-size truck market. The F-150 and the Silverado will continue to be the juggernauts engaged in epic battle in this segment for at least another decade.
I think we can expect Nissan to get into real trouble trying to sell Titans now though. And Dodge is already having a major major problem moving Rams, a problem which will only get worse with the new Tundra, IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Being second should make GM hungryr to regain that top spot. Maybe steel Toyotas idea and build better cars to get back there.
Damn lemko, I'd never have guessed the similarity until you pointed it out.
Yep, that looks JUST like the interior in the new Tundra.... :confuse:
And get suppliers to buy into the "just in time" parts strategy. If done well, TPS can't be beat, but it takes dedication and commitment.
GM does an fine job getting quality up, especially from where they've come from 10-15 years ago, which they're still trying to live down.
Quite a bit of GM's quality improvement is borne from joint ventures with Toyota, like the NUMMI plant in California. Toyota has no problem sharing many parts of the TPS system with GM, and others.
Check this link out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/magazine/18Toyota.t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3
DrFill
However, any significant problems will be deadly to them.
I think that, in general, GM and Ford both have done a good job on their truck lines.
Having said that - has anyone else seen the Toyota "Teeter-Totter" advertisement with the Toyota pulling 10 tons from a dead start uphill and then braking it to a stop on the downhill side?
It's a great ad....
From my perspective, it isn't so much that Toyota is a spectacular company. It is just that they execute well. The frustrating aspect with regard to GM/Ford/Chysler (in particular the latter two) is that they just shoot themselves in the foot. They can't seem to take a clue from other successful interior layouts and materials. If they weren't so hard-headed and stubborn about this aspect before, they would be much higher in the game than they are now. It is finally getting better, but it sure as heck took a long time. Now we have to wait to see things develop.
I think most would agree that it is difficult to buy an absolutely horrible vehicle right now, so it is really just personal taste, execution, features, and value. Engines are powerful, reliable, and efficient. Safety and technology is all top-notch. Just style and design are the big hurdles... those, I'm sure will be improved over time.
And it wasn't just the fact that there was too much plastic, as that seems to be a trend with all trucks these days. In fact, hard plastic might not be a bad thing in a work truck that's going to get used and abused and roughed up. But I just found the Tundra's interior to not be very stylish looking. I remember the gauge cluster in particular was pretty bad.
It's almost as if Toyota's starting to learn that they can just get away with slapping stuff together, while GM is slowly turning themselves around.
Now I will say that I think the Tundra is finally a competent truck that can play with the big boys. But I don't know if there's enough there to lure the Ford/Dodge/Chevy/GM loyalists away. I could see the Tundra hurting the Titan though. And for people who bought a Ford/Dodge/GM truck and weren't satisified with it, the Tundra does give them a viable full-sized alternative, instead of forcing them to put up with a 3/4-scale truck like the previous Tundra.
I guess with the Tacoma growing in size, that will fill the Tundra's old niche. But that leaves the question , will the Tacoma's sales fall to the level of the Tundra.
Outside of the Jeep brand and the minivans, I don't see GM needing Chrysler. Chrysler brings nothing to the table, and while staving off Toyota in total sales for a few years, ulimately the weight of Chrysler will hold them back. I think, on their own, GM will lose the title this or next year, yet with the cars they have coming out in the next 18 months and the rave reviews they've been getting, coupled with the undertow of Toyota's failing quality, may be enough to vault GM back to no. 1 a year or two after that. I think that GM is going after some areas that Toyota has a stranglehold on, like Africa. Over there all you see are Landcruisers in the deserts and jungles. GM announced it's building a plant over there to make Hummers. An H2 would make a viable alternative to that. Also, GM seems to have a pretty good grip,and a long relationship with the Chinese. The Chinese are still smarting from the atrocities of the '30's, and harbor some resentment toward the Japanese. That market may ultimately be GM's ace in the hole, or the straw that breaks the camel's back.
If GM does take on Chrysler, I hope it's in the form of a merger w/DCX as a whole. Also, if that were to happen, GM should be calling the shots, not Dr. Z. Mercedes has essentially given Chrysler "table scraps" and leftovers, and not merged technologies very well, causing Chrysler to die on the vine. If that type of merger happened they would have to work as partners; check their egos at the door and not act as if one is better than the other. This way, all car lines could flourish, as the technology would flow everywhere. Otherwise, it would spell doom for both companies.
I could actually appreciate the previous Tundra for having fairly modest external dimensions compared to your typical pickup, but my biggest beef was with interior comfort. It had a bad seating position for me. You sat too low to the floor, and the seats felt like they came out of something small and cheap like a Corolla. The seat also didn't go back far enough for my tastes. I can tolerate a low seat, but a low seat requires more seat travel for taller drivers. A low seat with limited travel is a recipe for torture. I think the Tacoma was actually an improvement in seating, although it had a few issues I didn't like, such as a steering wheel that was off-center to the seat position, and being jammed up too close to the side of the door.
But then on the flip side, I appreciated the Tundra for still being able to carry the proverbial 4x8 sheet of plywood between its wheels, with the tailgate closed, something that no midsize/compact truck can do.
Lutz has been there since fall '02 I believe. So the bad designs/cars from b4 then are not on him (can't believe I sound like I'm defending him as I am no fan of his). But the current crop is on him; if they don't compete, then yes I say get someone in there that can make a difference. I'm talking a Harley Earl, Bill Mitchell, Larry Shinoda for design, Jim Wangers for marketing and a John DeLorean - Ed Cole-type for engineering. Another is a "Bunkie" Knudsen; he (though Wangers as well, and later DeLorean) is credited for making Pontiac into the "excitement" division. Problem is we'll probably never see those types again, particularly @ GM. :sick:
But for me, I'd rather GM concentrate on making good product, continue increasing quality levels, learn / understand / react to the markets, stay awake at the "switch" if you will. Forget about being #1. I would rather they slip to #2 and continue to improve than to try to retain #1 by any means necessary. Kind of like:
"Yes, they are #1 in sales, but that was due to crazy incentives..." or
"Number one, but with a slew of recalls and warranty woes..."
You know what I mean? They're #1 but...
Make good product, produce vehicles that just don't match the competition but beat it, know your customer/market and provide what that market wants/needs and the top spot will come. Kind of like how it's coming for Toyota?
Agreed that GM shouldn't worry about top spot at all. That will come when they get their products right. The difficulty for them currently is that even though their products now are getting noticably better, they are hampered by a slew of bad ones that drag down their financials. Of course they have heavy financial burdens from pensions, health care and such, but the other vehicles don't help their cause. They need to consolidate a bunch of vehicles and brands quickly and concentrate on doing those well. Having too many models has hurt them. Hopefully they can rebound with 25 good models instead of 10 or 12 good models and 60 bad ones (as an example, I'm not stating those as real figures, just to make the point).
Anyway, I am not here to defend the Tundra, and I don't think for one minute that Toyota's conquest of the full-size truck market is imminent or anything. But what you see in there is intentional on Toyota's part, I am sure. What they really need soon, yesterday in fact, is a good diesel option.
The question in my mind with reference to this thread's title is whether GM will hold the sales lead in North America in 2012, after all the downsizing in the current plan is complete, and the fleet sales have mostly been eliminated. The two companies are only what, 700K or so, apart in annual retail sales right now? And Toyota has made double-digit gains in sales every year for the past six or seven at least.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think that the Tundra does not pose much of an immediate threat to either Chevy or Ford.
Toyota has essentially gambled on putting all their eggs in the power/ workin' man/ git 'er dun group while the group they should be chasing are the suburban wanna'be truck guys.
The guys that actually use trucks for a living tend to be most focused on cost and are brand and country loyal. They will not be quick to jump ship. I understand that there are good arguments to support buying the Tundra from a USA-first mentality (I am in San Antonio) but the fact remains that Toyota will always be considered an import.
I do think the Tundra will effectively kill the Titan. Good riddance too.
Whoever can bring a diesel engine to market in this truck segment will be able to dominate the market. Mileage is the great handicap to all the non-truck driving potential buyers out there. There are only so many construction guys and farmers for Toy/Ford/GM/Dodge to share around. The growth market is Home Depot at the weekend guy. That guy needs 25+mpg more than he needs 10,000# towing.
GM has made cheap interiors for decades on their trucks, and it hurt sales not one wit.
The people Toyota are trying to influence are "true truckers", and they really couldn't care less about the appeal of the interior. Just what can the truck do. And what it can't.
Power, versatility, and durability are most likely the main factors in a buyers purchase in this class, and the Toyota should have power and durability covered.
Versatility will come, with HD, dualie, hybrids and so on.
This year the ball really starts rolling as far as the Tundra as a truck brand. Sales leadership is still 10-15 years away, if ever.
I am very interested in what Toyota has in store for a mid-gen update, around 2010.
DrFill
I'm wondering if you can elaborate - because I don't know what is so revolutionary about them. They look like the same old platforms to me - no independent rear suspension even in the SUVs. No folding flat rear seats yet.
A fraud, if you ask me - there's nothing new under there, just the body...l
The Titan was the first Japanese experiment with a full size truck, and is built of Nissan's excellent truck platform. One must remember that it is older than the competition, and will probably be re-designed in the next 1-2 years (they just re-did the interior slightly as well). I think it will certainly be hurt the most, but merely because of cross-brand shopping... not on it's own merit. I think we all know that Nissan has planned and expected it. I'm not worried.
Yes, you're right - my mistake, he was there in July ~ August '01. He left us right before, I want to say Concurs de Elegance? that year, on our dime no less. He was supposed to be there to promote our product, yet used it as his coming-out party on his move to GM. I realized my date error last night!! :surprise:
But I do agree that there has been problems, missteps and miscalculations on his watch and he seriously needs to think about a replacement, as some of the others in the group need to as well. I won't even get into his Cunningham project...too long of a story. Also agree on the rebound models. I think they need to stop flooding the market just to flood it. They can no longer afford (cash-wise, market-share wise) to have vehicles in EVERY segment / market. The need to do a basic core-competency, a SWAT analysis if you will, create a game plan and see it through. Once that is done, then the #1 will come.
No, Hyundai has said in the Detroit news no they are not buying Chrysler.
In any event, if they (GM) and Chrysler team up, I believe it is what I've read as well, a JV of sorts, like with Ford and the 6spd tranny. But it's funny that GM would want to get into another team up, seeing as though the Fiat fiasco is still pretty fresh.
Plus, what exactly would GM get from Mother Mopar? There isn't any talked about that.
I don't see GM buying part or all of Chrysler. Everything one has, the other has in some form. Many things would have to be dumped on BOTH sides as there is so much overlap. I think GM should concentrate on getting themselves together, stop worrying about being overtaken by Toyota for the #1 spot.
Seems that Delphi is shopping its interior components to potentials. I believe they have found a potential buyer, or at least this group is doing preliminary case study.
Does the sell-off begin?
This is just like the Nissan merger except there is no Ghosn shooting off his mouth. Of course we can see where they are today. Nissan is shutting down capacity in it's truck lines while Toyota is tooling up. Even after their savior new cars coming out sales only perked up .8% (better than overall GM but not good since Nissan is mostly all new.
Why would GM buy Chrysler? First only if it gets it for free. And free would mean they would still have too many Chrylser products in the field. Way too many dealerships, even relative to GM. And way too many plants and employees from salary to hourly AND have all the health care and retirees.
Perhaps Mercedes could give GM 5 billion to take care of those cost?
As far as what they would do if they got it.
1.) Merge the Engineering/marketing/Design/headquarters and get rid of at least 3/4's of Chryslers employees and a bunch more of GM. Keep the minivan guys.
2.) Combine the Dodge/Chrysler dealers/brand and cut the product down to the bone. This would force dealer closings and GM would hope they would not have to pay to get rid of dealers. Perhaps cut all dodge products and combine Chrysler with either GMC/Buick/Pontiac dealerships? Put the dodge minivan at Chevrolet.
3.) Combine Jeep/Hummer into one brand and put it with Cadillac/Saab dealerships.
4.) Close half the Chrysler plants completely and give severance pay, not job banks.
Heck there are so many possibilities, it is impossible to surmise.
The big question is how Mercedes will take care of the legacy cost and the over capacity and the dealers.
Unless GM gets it for basically nothing will they take it. And no one else will either unless the issues are handled somehow.
As far as the 300, it is actually abut time for a refresh and if GM buys they would have to make a decision on using the Zeta platform (Austrailian) or use Chryslers. I would put money on the Zeta due to the global impact that Zeta already has and the products already developed and soon to be released-Camaro, Impala, buick?, G8, etc. And they already have an excellent plant in the throes of tooliing up in Oshawa.
I think there will be a of cutting at the Chrysler side if GM takes them on.
The 300 would become yet another Zeta if GM did buy Chrysler, since Chrysler would only have half a platform without the Daimler parts. That is what makes Chrysler such a hard sell: the only products it has worthwhile to GM are the minivans and the Wrangler. The Sprinter van, half of the 300, and the forthcoming diesels would be lost in a DCX split. About the only other way to justify a GM buyout would be to gain a larger share of the domestic loyalist market, which would be consistent with GM's recent strategy (shortsighted IMO) to grab bigger pieces of shrinking pies.
Funny how the conversation has turned to what Mercedes has to pay to get rid of Chrysler! Perhaps Mercedes could just wash their hands of Chrysler and just let it all die off?
Just close down everything and sell it off piecemeal. Perhaps that is what GM is doing? GM will take this plant, that plant, the people in those plants, and that is it? maybe a few folks from Engineering/Marketing/etc.? Just close down the rest.
That would sure be good for all the OEMS. Just take out 2 million units of capacity (last years Chrysler sales -minivans). A lot of people out of work but no one seems to care about the domestic workers anyway.
Actually there seems to be some equity firms interested in Chrysler so GM may not be getting it for the cheap. From what I read though it is Chrysler going out and asking them to buy them so the interests may no be there.
At the retail level, GM could combine the best of Chrysler into a single Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep dealership network, similar to the Alpha stores many Chrysler group dealers already operate. But GM or another purchaser could keep only Chrysler's strongest products.
The new dealers likely would sell:
Stow 'n Go minivans
Chrysler and Dodge rear-wheel-drive cars, including the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger
Dodge Ram pickups
The Jeep Wrangler, Liberty, Grand Cherokee and Patriot.
Along with these would come the popular Hemi performance engine brand.
More than brands
But brands aren't all a buyer like GM would get. Chrysler still has a lot of engineering talent and one of the industry's best design departments. And Chrysler has more good will with its suppliers than do GM or Ford, according to Planning Perspectives Inc., which surveys supplier relations with automakers.
The best of Chrysler's assembly plants could fit into GM's network, including:
Toledo Supplier Park, which makes the Jeep Wrangler
Brampton, Ontario, which builds the Chrysler 300 and the Dodge Charger and Magnum
Windsor and St. Louis, which make minivans
Belvidere, Ill., which builds the Dodge Caliber and the Jeep Compass and Patriot.
Toluca, Mexico, where the PT Cruiser is made.
The Dodge Sheep pickup
The Dodge Garter Snake roadster
The Dodge Consenter pony car
The Dodge Retreater sedan
The Chrysler Pacifist crossover
The Chrysler PC, (Politically Correct) Snoozer
The Chrysler Ceasefire roadster
The Chrysler 3.00 sedan
Of course, they'll have to keep the Jeep Patriot because we all know what a wonderful All-American company Toyota is!
And GM can't just shut down any unneeded Chrysler dealers...it would have to buy them out, as per state franchise laws. That is another huge expense.
I can see why GM would want the minivans and Jeep, but the rest represents more liabilities that the company cannot afford at this point.