General Motors discussions

62vetteefp

It may be seen as a smaller car, yet all the specs are within 3 inches of one another. The Impala is 10 inches longer and about 300lbs heavier than a Camcord

And the Civic is within 3" of all Accord dimensions except overall length. And Malibu is closer to Civic in many dimensions than to the Accord. The malibu is smaller than the Accord. The new Malibu will be much closer to the Accord.
Model
2007 Honda Accord Sedan LX Manual Transmission
2007 Honda Civic Si Sedan 6-Spd MT
2007 Chevrolet Malibu LS


Wheelbase (in.) 107.9 106.3 106.3

Length (in.) 191.1 176.7 188.3

Width (in.) 71.6 69.0 69.9

Height (in.) 57.2 56.5 57.5

Passenger Volume (cu. ft., mfr.) 102.7 88.4 101.4

Cargo Volume (cu. ft., mfr.) 14.0 12.0 15.4

Headroom (Front, in.) 40.4 38.1 39.9

Headroom (Second-Row, in.) 38.5 36.7 37.6

Legroom (Front, in.) 42.6 42.2 41.9

Legroom (Second-Row, in.) 36.8 34.6 38.5

Shoulder Room (Front, in.) 56.9 53.6 56.7

Shoulder Room (Second-Row, in.) 56.1 52.3 56.1

Hiproom (Front, in.) 54.6 51.9 52.4

Hiproom (Second-Row, in.) 53.5 51.0 52.0

m1miata

Yes, but what does that have to do with my statement. Please read it again,

Loren

62vetteefp

GM does not control what people buy. They buy what they want. SUV's were supposedly forced on the stupid buyers in the past. Even today with $3 gas they are still buying them. GM has some control!

m1miata

No-no, they are talking smaller Aveo/Korea GM cars, below the current sized ones. But then again, who cares.

bumpy

Toyota does that sort of thing for fun. GM has to shut down a plant for two years to change a model line.

m1miata

That be the history, so take a journey back in time. I said, there was a time.

62vetteefp

Thats 18 months and it is a plant that has building the same model for 17 years or so. Was not designed to be flexible. Still going from a truck to small car will take a bit of work/money.

jkr2106

Headcount: Who thinks a Chevy Lambda is a good idea?

Unless it is a minivan (please!please!please!!!) I think it is unnecessary, but GM scrapped all minivan plans. :sick:

m1miata

The line you lifted about GM control what people bought, rather than filling a needs as the public was calling for refers to the history of GM -- heck all US car manufacturers. Not what is happening now, or a few years back. Taken as a whole the 100 years of GM, most of those years they built the car the way you were suppose to like it designed, and with some good marketing, people went along for the ride. Things changed in the last quarter century, as people started to buy less of what they were suppose to like, and more of what they wanted. GM pretty much lost control, as did the other big 3 as time went on.

As I have said, currently as in the latest decade, they (GM) are now listening a bit more to what the customer wants in a car. And current management is doing a better job of relating to the customers needs.

Now it is apparent that macho marketing of the SUV compared to soccer mom image of the mini-van did help increase sales. But my best guess is that guys never took to a mini-van, and that the gals felt they were missing something the guys had when they bought those SUVs, so
in a way it became an image car to all. Of course there are large families and construction/farm worker owners of SUVs which actually need the large barge. It is quite the people hauler. That said, I see lots of people hauling absolutely no more than a bag of groceries which would fit on the back of a moped. At $3.65 per gallon, it must hurt to fill up those two or three ton monsters. Oh well, at least they don't have fins on those SUVs..... yet.

Loren

m1miata

Interesting. They listed the Cobalt as most wanted under $15K at Edmund's yet people actually buy the Corolla and Civic. Survey results look a bit odd. Said they picked it over Yaris and those other little toys. While I am not so sure they are selling all that many more Cobalts than the other smaller cars, the Cobalt is more in the class of Corolla and Civic. Price wise you can get those toy cars between $10K and $12K. But regardless of sizes, what people are buying and what they say is most desirable, in AFFORDABLE cars listed here doesn't jive.
Loren

nippononly

The plant that builds the Sequoia also builds Tundras and serves as an overflow for the new San Antonio plant. There is also talk of building other models there. The thing is, Toyota is trying to decide what to do with the Sequoia replacement, which is already designed and is supposed to be available late this year or early next year. Apparently it is much larger, and uses lots of gas, just like the new Tundra. I wonder if Toyota will just concede this segment to GM. It is a small and shrinking segment. They sell more Camrys each year than sales of all the full-size BOF SUVs.

torque_r

The plant that builds the Sequoia also builds Tundras and serves as an overflow for the new San Antonio plant

It also builds Siennas

pmusce

The plant that builds the Sequoia also builds Tundras and serves as an overflow for the new San Antonio plant. There is also talk of building other models there. The thing is, Toyota is trying to decide what to do with the Sequoia replacement, which is already designed and is supposed to be available late this year or early next year. Apparently it is much larger, and uses lots of gas, just like the new Tundra. I wonder if Toyota will just concede this segment to GM. It is a small and shrinking segment. They sell more Camrys each year than sales of all the full-size BOF SUVs.

Not quite - 2006 Sales (Source - Automotive News)

Camry - 448,445

Full Size BOF SUV's
Toyota - 68,740 (Sequoia, Land Crusier, LX470, GX470)
Nissan - 44,558 (Armada, QX56)
Ford - 111,150 (Navigator, Expedition)
GM - 427,885 (Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, Escalade, H2)

Total - 652,333

nippononly

Wooooow, you're good with those numbers! :-)

The number I was thinking of did not include so-called "luxury brands", so my number was smaller. But I think the point is perhaps fairly well-made anyway. The Sequoia has been selling at a rate of 20,000 per year or less now for several years. Could they hope for 40K per year if the new model was superb? I think even that would be stretching it, what with sales in the segment shrinking. If they could somehow sell a Lexus version, that might be more worth their trouble and expense, but Lexus already has way too many trucks. And 30-40K annual sales of the new Sequoia, compared to the PR and CAFE hit they continue to take for their large gas-guzzling trucks, doesn't seem like a good enough incentive. Still, I suppose they will go ahead since they have gone to the trouble of preparing a new model.

Maybe Ford will drop the Expedition and in a few years GM will be the only game in town for full-size BOF SUVs!! ;-)

62vetteefp

And you are not including the rest of the story- The pick ups which will be needed unless we go back to horses and buggies.

Same basic architecture as the SUV's so at GM
427,885+636,000 silverados+211,000 Siennas

= 1.3 million large trucks all on one architecture.

62vetteefp

"the overflow for the San Antonio plant"?

I see the Indiana plant builds Tundra, Sequoia, and Sienna which add up to 322,000 vehicles last year. Maxed out volume. So they need to sell at least another 200,000 Tundras to fill up both plants. That means a total volume of 330,000 Tundras minus whatever new volume they get out of the Seqouia and Sienna. That does sound pretty aggressive in the short to mid term. I doubt they are gong to be able to do it in this gas sensitive/domesitic ruled period/segment.

so again I wonder how long before they retool the plant for something else?

louiswei

If Tundra dies

What a weird assumption...

If Toyota can sustain the old Tundra, it certainly can sustain the new one.

:confuse: :confuse: :confuse:

rocketman67

I'd like to see the General get it's act together because I've owned GM products. Most recently a '95 Sonoma which treated me very good for 115k miles.
I know the guy who bought it and as far as I know it's still going strong.
I did opt not to replace it with a Canyon/Colorado because of the I5. I went with a 2k6 Frontier NISMO with the V6.
What an awesome truck to row the 6speed!
I know have strong desires for the Saturn Sky Redline.
But I'll wait till the 2k8 model to see if they massage a few quicks out of what I think is a drop dead design with some decent hp.
If the General does nothing to work out some of the bugs in Sky then I'll know they are just blowing smoke and will look some where else.

xrunner2

What a stupid statement. GM cannot control what customers buy.

If a buyer walks into a chevy dealership they have the option of buying a Aveo, CObalt or Malibu 4 cylinder if they are turned off by the mileage of the Tahoe or Silverado.

But, GM can control what they do or do not spend money on development and subsequently their offerings. They apparently have been oblivious to world oil market trends and the term "peak oil".

GM has not done enough to make cars appealing to current and previous buyers of Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans and now Hyundais to cause them to walk into their showrooms to look at Aveo, Cobalt or Malibu IMO.

GM offerings in small and mid-car segment have been behind what VW (years ago Beetle) and then Honda, Toyota and Nissan make in terms of value, quality, reliability according to various sources such as CR and car magazine tests. Think about Vega, Corvair, Chevette, X-car, Cavalier and compare to foreign brands. In current day, the Cobalt not on a par with a Honda Civic.

GM could have done serious development work back in 90's to make small and medium size cars that met or perhaps beat the Japanese brands. Instead, they chose not to and promoted suvs and large vehicles. Think about all of the tv ads of GM promoting suvs and macho trucks vs the intelligent commercials of Japanese brands such as Honda. When I recall seeing print ads in newspapers for Chevrolet over last decade+, vast majority of vehicles shown were suvs, trucks and with a cavalier thrown in for balance. They had a lot more offerings in suvs/trucks than cars, and heavily promoted these, so that is what the buying public chose from. Public had much more choice in cars from major Japanese foreign brands then Chevrolet.

grbeck

jkr2106: Headcount: Who thinks a Chevy Lambda is a good idea?

Chevy dealers?

62vetteefp

I see the Indiana plant builds Tundra, Sequoia, and Sienna which add up to 322,000 vehicles last year. Maxed out volume. So they need to sell at least another 200,000 Tundras to fill up both plants. That means a total volume of 330,000 Tundras minus whatever new volume they get out of the Seqouia and Sienna. That does sound pretty aggressive in the short to mid term. I doubt they are gong to be able to do it in this gas sensitive/domesitic ruled period/segment.

Please reread. Perhaps I should have said, "if Tundra does not come close to their needed numbers to keep a 2nd plant operating at an efficient volume".

If Toyota can sustain the old Tundra, it certainly can sustain the new one.

So no, if they sustain the old Tundra volumes they have an extra truck plant that would have to be changed over to something else, a very expensive proposition.

louiswei

So the content of your post does not reflect the title...

Tundra sales below expectation != Tundra dies.

62vetteefp

jkr2106: Headcount: Who thinks a Chevy Lambda is a good idea?

I do. When the Lamda was under development midsize SUV's were still going strong. Now that the gas prices are so high and the large GM SUV's are so efficient and selling well the Trailblazer is going to die. That is huge volume for GM and to just throw it away would be a mistake. Chevy is the volume brand at GM and they sell much more than any other brands and will sell huge numbers of a Chevy Lamda SUV. A mistake was made when they did not get it in the first place.

Issue is that there are two Lamdas at the GMC/Buick dealerships. That needs to be resolved. How? Does not really matter. Just drop one of them. Or perhaps drop both of them but Chevy will sell the most and make the most profit for GM.

Saturn is doing their job and is conquesting non GM buyers like they should be. As they add dealerships and product their volume will continue to rise.

62vetteefp

You just reading the titles now? :P

jkr2106

The problem is, as we've seen, GM will most likely just slap a bowtie on the Outlook. The Tahoe and whatever Chevy Lambda comes about are very similar. I think it would be more interesting if they develop a minivan on that platform.

I do agree that there shouldn't be two Lambdas at the B-P-G dealers. I say cut the Acadia.

Saturn, IMO, is a very crutial expansion point for GM. I think it should have the entry-level Lambda to better compete with the imports.

grbeck

62veteefp: Issue is that there are two Lamdas at the GMC/Buick dealerships. That needs to be resolved. How? Does not really matter. Just drop one of them. Or perhaps drop both of them but Chevy will sell the most and make the most profit for GM.

But the GMC Acadia is outselling the Outlook by a healthy margin, and, if I recall correctly, GMC is GM's second-best selling division. Phasing out the Acadia is not a good idea (I also think it's the best looking of GM's crossovers).

That leaves the Enclave, the vehicle on which Buick has been pinning its hopes for a turnaround. But phasing out the Enclave would hurt Buick.

m1miata

This has to be a joke of some sort. THIS
can't be for real. Next step, outsourcing politicians. :surprise: But really now, the news reports done from India?

Loren

1487

what fantasy land do you live in where companies are NOT concerned about making the most profitable vehicles possible?

GM made lots of trucks and SUVs in the 90s because

a) People wanted them and the segment was growing

and

b)with GM's labor and healthcare costs it is nearly impossible to make a profit on small cars but very possible to make one on $40k SUVs.

This is merely common sense and GM was trying to make money. Toyota/Honda/etc. didnt make better cars because they cared about the environment, they made them because that is what they make all over the world. In case you missed it, trucks/minivans/SUVs are not the specialty of the Asian automakers and thus until recently these were not segments they focused on. The cars they sell here in many cases are the same cars they sell in Europe and Asia and its always best to focus on what you do best. When gas was cheaper GM focuses on what it did best and that just happened to be what people wanted at that time.

I really dont care about the Vega, Corvair or any other car from 30+ years ago. They have nothing to do with GM's current products and if you'd bother to check out opinions on GM's more recent cars you'll see that they do have many competitive offerings.

"GM offerings in small and mid-car segment have been behind what VW (years ago Beetle) and then Honda, Toyota and Nissan make in terms of value, quality, reliability according to various sources such as CR and car magazine tests."

Last time I checked GM sells more cars than Toyota, Honda or NIssan in the US. How can you say that the company that sells the most cars is incapable of matching its smaller competitors in value, reliability or quality? Speakin of CR, I'm pretty sure GM's reliability is about on par with Nissan. You mention magazine tests, but the aura was rated better than the Camry by Autoweek and C&D. The Aura was also named NA Car of the Year (beat camry) and Motorweek's best family car. I suspect the new Malibu will be similarly received by the press. It's also worth noting that the Impala was the 3rd best selling car last year which is pretty incredible when you consider how incompetent GM is when it comes to cars according to you. On top of that the Impala is doing better this year in spite of reducing fleet sales.

"But, GM can control what they do or do not spend money on development and subsequently their offerings. They apparently have been oblivious to world oil market trends and the term "peak oil". "

With the CTS, Malibu, 2008 STS, G8, Astra, etc. coming out in the next 6-7 months I fail to see why you believe GM doesnt invest in cars. We also have the refreshed 2008 Lacrosse, the updated Vette, the freshened 9-3 coming in the short term with the Camaro and RWD sedans coming in the long terms. Those are all cars last time I checked.

1487

I do get tired of people trying to prove that GM doesnt offer any decent cars or any vehicle with acceptable gas mileage just because the Cobalt doesnt get 40mpg on the hwy. The simplistic argument of so many GM bashers boils down to "GM doesnt have a car that can match the Civic or Prius in mileage and is pushing SUVs on customers and thus they dont care about the environment". This silly argument ignores the fact that GM has plenty of midsize cars and crossovers that get competitive mileage for those that want to buy them. There are only a handful of vehicles on the road that get 35-40mpg on the highway and MOST cars sold today do not come close to that mileage. I rarely see people mention the fact that Toyota's CAFE number is only slightly higher than GMs in spite of all the talk about GM being so far behind on fuel economy and being focused on SUVs.

m1miata

Yep, the ease money is in SUV and trucks, where they can charge more and people never seem to question the pricing. Makes perfect sense to milk the SUV for what it is worth. Only problem comes when the cow dies. For now, people still have money left or have borrowed their future away, but after the economy tumbles, gas remains high, and they are out of a house, cars may look good again, or perhaps used SUVs.

The GM line of SUVs are looking pretty good these days. If the economy holds, and gas doesn't go over $4 per gallon, perhaps they get lucky and these SUVs, with the good profit margin, will fill the wallet at GM. Nothing wrong with profit. Nothing wrong with GM SUV line sales. Could be a setup for disaster however, should the market for SUV and trucks turn upside down. Housing market went bust. Next up to go bust is the stock market. Both, with any luck at all, rebound before doing permanent damage to our car industry. As for the car line, GM has a couple-three which look like winners. Fleet wise, still nothing too exciting. Sales wise, the most amazing is the Impala sales. Talk about milking the cow -- wow, the refresh did its magic, and people bought the old gal.

Hold on, its gonna be a bumpy ride!
Loren

grbeck

1487: When gas was cheaper GM focuses on what it did best and that just happened to be what people wanted at that time.

The problem is this:

If gas is $1.50 a gallon, GM, Toyota and Honda prosper.

If gas hits $4 a gallon, Toyota and Honda will be okay, but GM will be treading water.

If gas hits $5 a gallon...

GM has spent too much time "focusing on what it does best" and not enough time preparing for a market where "what it does best" may meet with stiff sales resistance because of changing external factors.

These warnings have been voiced for years, and management and labor have continued to ignore them.

62vetteefp

With the internet many jobs will be outsourced. Just a matter of time. All those who work from home, watch out.

62vetteefp

Minivans are on the way to obscurity but perhaps a sliding door will show up. Not much other difference except styling,

jkr2106

Mechanics-wise, yes they are the same.

Yet they will still be in different classes and not direct competition--this will not be another example of GM competing with itself. I just think it would be a mistake to take this 'exclusive' away from Saturn.

62vetteefp

Not bad, sorta what I got when I left. Of course my base salary was not quite the same.

Like many Fortune 500 CEOs, General Motors Corp.'s Rick Wagoner has a multimillion dollar golden parachute to protect him if the automaker is ever to be taken over.

But this year, GM tightened its policies under which its top executives can receive severance payouts.

Wagoner stands to receive up to $14 million in severance and stock payouts, according to GM's proxy filed April 27. Other top execs have similar exit packages.

In the past, only a change of control at GM was required to trigger the payouts. But under GM's new policy, the executives also would have to be fired without cause to receive the payouts. Corporate governance experts say revised policy is more fair to shareholders.

The requirement may be one reason why GM decided to change its policies this year.

"It's a combination of 'We have to disclose this stuff, so we need to make it as pretty as we can,' and just wanting to be more responsible," said Dan Moynihan, an executive pay expert with Compensation Resources Inc. in New Jersey. "Companies are doing this out of a desire to make executive compensation as shareholder-friendly as possible."

This the first year the SEC has required public companies to disclose details about what executives could get in total compensation if they were to be fired.

The new rules come in an era of heightened scrutiny surrounding corporate accounting practices and executive pay packages.

The disclosures show the severance packages have become commonplace among large corporations. That's especially true in the auto industry, where the growing clout of cash-rich private equity firms combined with the diminishing capital of auto companies is making even the biggest players more susceptible to takeovers.

"In the current environment, every company needs to be concerned with protection from a takeover," said analyst John Casesa, managing partner of Casesa Shapiro Group. "It's not unusual anymore."

Wagoner's payment would come in the form of $9.4 million in stock and options that would become fully vested upon his termination. He would then be eligible for up to three times his annual $1.65 million salary -- or about $5 million, according to GM's proxy.

Tightening the policy was "a good thing to do from a corporate governance standpoint," GM spokeswoman Julie Gibson said, adding that such provisions are increasingly common in corporate America.

GM has provisions in place for four other executives. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has the second richest deal, with $4.8 million in stock and options and potentially $3.5 million in severance pay.

Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson would get $2.9 million in stock and options and up to $3.5 million in severance; and manufacturing chief Gary Cowger would get $1.4 million in stock and options and $2.6 million in severance.

At Ford Motor Co., chief executive Alan Mulally could get $27.5 million if he were to be fired as part of a Ford buyout.

driver56

Rocketman67,

I've never owned a G.M. product, nothing against them, my Step-Dad practically worships their pick-ups (particularly the H.D. 3/4 tons). I know that when we were hauling his 5 ton Golden Falcon Fifth Wheel, up a pass here in B.C., I almost forgot that we were towing.
I to would like to see G.M. stay competitive (I wish I'd bought their stock at $19). Good luck to them!
I was a tad disappointed with the Colorado/Canyon offerings, mainly cause of that lopped off 6 under their hood. Apart from that, and maybe the low budget interior, they seem like they would suit enough buyers to empty the lots. I've chatted with a few owners and they appear pleased. And the current models have more power.
I now drive a 2007 Nismo Crew 4x4 (the only Nissan Crew Cab I could fit into our garage). Mines an Auto, sweet, crisp shifts, no hunting. Like it!
I don't know the Saturns at all, but will take a look see sometime.
Again, good luck to G.M.!

m1miata

HERE IS A LINK to some photos of a cruise before the Cruisin Morro Bay Car Show 2007 event.

The heritage of stylish cars is a pretty good advantage which Japan doesn't have. Well there was a 240Z at the show, and they could have had the Supra - maybe one was there. But you get the point. GM and Ford have an advantage which they should leverage more. The new Impala and Camaro, as well as, the current truck line are already benefiting from the good ol' days. Seems like everything was going their way back in the RWD era, and larger and larger mid-sized cars.

I love them Camaros, Firebirds, Corvettes, Chevelles, and those comparable models of Ford / Chrysler. Check-out the Buick photo -- massive car there! Hope to add more photos later on in the larger size, as I get the time to do so. Have more photos from the show day. This set is the cruise day.
Loren

62vetteefp

GM sales numbers are out for April! Here's the info on the Lambdas:

Vehicle Jan Feb Mar Apr Model Sales YTD
Acadia 1682 4283 5739 7487 19191
Outlook 944 1900 2210 3592 8646
Enclave 0 0 0 52 52
Monthly totals 2626 6183 7949 11131 27889

Stole this from the Lamda forum. Quite a curve up for the volume.

62vetteefp

The 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid looks nothing like the NASA space shuttle, yet it's a similar leap into the future, and a similar collaboration among a bunch of science guys made it happen.

So positive it's amazing. One other thing, GM developed the system, Chrylser and BMW are just using it in their vehicles with the needed revisions to fit.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=120687

jcgable

Which means they are receiving licensing income by allowing them to use it... nice.

fezo

That every article I read on this says it is a cooperative effort with engineers of all three companies working together and even with both US and German flags flown in front of the development center?

It sounds great. I just don't see that it is GM's project with the other's just buying in. Nothing wrong with that either way.

jkr2106

I always got the impression that GM sort of had the idea first. Then the joint effort comes in with adapting the system from buses to autos. Is that right?

fezo

That might explain it. In any case the effort is to be commended. It's a fascinating idea.

jcgable

One thing I have always believed is that GM was never a bad company. They had a dry period with some internal issues that blocked their ability to be as innovative as they could or should have been. It doesn't mean that the majority of the people behind the scenes are lacking that "push the edge" quality, it means that the upper management isn't leading the company in a direction that moves forward (no pun intended). This among other things is a sign that in the last few years GM has been looking five, ten and fifteen years into the future for what is going to be needed and desired by the consumer; and it's a good sign. I don't think that GM is going to reclaim it's spot as THE automaker of the world, but I think that if their current new ideas (the 2-mode hybrid, VOLT, bolder design) do pan out, they they will definitely hold on and stay competitive with the rest of the world.

holdenguy

http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/action/conceptcar?modelid=20004

Here is the 2004 Torana short WB Zeta.

fezo

Not at all. They had some disastrously bad management but that is gone.

I'm assuming they've gotten past the worst of times and can be building now. They aren't completely out of the woods but certainly seem to be heading there.

altest

Acura is in a different league. Pontiac finds it hard to compete with non-lux imports. But a rear-drive G8 and a rear-drive G6 can help Pontiac create a niche. In fact, a rear-drive G6 may be what GM needs to win me back. It has been a while since I have traded in GMs for Japanese.

62vetteefp

Wonder how long before they can get it intoproduction? Is there a big market for this size vehicle in Australia?

62vetteefp

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/100_news/hybridbus_012405.html

GM introduced the dual mode hybrid bus back in 2005.

jkr2106

Better yet, do you think this is the new G6? Me likey; wish it wasn't a hatch though.