I'm from MD too (PG County actually) and it seems like nissans are disproportionately represented here for some reason. No matter where I am, Boston to Ft. Lauderdale, there never seems to be as many as home. :confuse:
I think they're a bit more sporty, and maybe people 'round DC are a bit more agressive??? I dunno but I hope Saturn can retain some of that flair; to be a sporty FWD brand like nissan and mazda compared to Chevy (Toyota/Ford/Honda).
you offered no substantive reasons why the cars I mentioned were not competitive, instead you just gave your opinion. In YOUR OPINION GM has never produced a nice midsize car, but that is not fact by any means. You tell us that the last gen OLds models should be dismissed because the brand was killed but that explanation doesnt hold water. Regardless of where OLds is today those cars were nice when they were available.
"By the way, you pointed out that GM is doing well in Europe (Ford is as well). Keep in mind that the cars sold to Europeans are different than the ones we CURRENTLY get here (Euro Focus and Astra as two quick examples). BOth brands "Euro-izing" their American lineups (Fusion is pretty Euro, and Saturn is getting Opels now) may help with sales in the States, but the question becomes, what took so freaking long? "
Again, its hard to criticize GM when you have little clue as to how the industry works. GM and Ford offer better cars in Europe for numerours reasons. a) small cars in Europe can be seen as premium and thus you can sell a compact over there for over $30k in US dollars. GM and Ford can offer top notch small and midsize cars with all kinds of power and upscale options because people will pay for them over there. In the US small cars are at the bottom of the foodchain and the cost structure here makes it unprofitable for the Big 3 to make cars under $20k here. b) In Europe labor costs are high across the board and health costs are picked up by governments over there so GM has a much more level playing field. Even though the Aura is based on the Vectra, the Opel model has far more options than the Saturn. The reason is that they can charge prices for an Opel that Saturn cant even dream of for the Aura.
Your contention is that GM has been in a downward spiral for decades and in unable to design product that can stand up to Toyota and Honda, etc. While you may want to make excuses, the bottom line is that GM Europe is part of GM and European products show what GM can do when it has the ability to charge premium prices and everyone faces the same labor cost situation.
"Make a correction in their executive pay and retirement packages, stop giving bonuses to executives while cutting UAW benefits due to poor corporate performance (and if the corporation is performing so poorly, why do these executives deserve bonuses, hmm?). Many of today's problems can be partially attributed to the American corporate "culture" that consistently rewards high level executives for poor performance. "
Ridiculous answer, you cant honeslty believe the the pay of a few GM top execs is enough to make a difference in GM's labor costs. First of all GM execs pay is far from the highest in corporate america, they are pretty modestly paid compared to execs in other industries. AS I said there are no easy answers to the cost structure issues and your "cut executive pay" solution is a cop out answer that proves you have no cure alls for the high legacy costs faced by GM.
"One is successor to the other. The Grand Am started off decently enough, as a reasonably (though not highly) competitive vehicle. Then it sat for a decade without major redesign. "
Totally incorrect, the Grand Am was redesigned for 1999 MY and was replaced by G6 in 2004. Where do you come up with this stuff?
Sales were boosted by fleet sales of police package versions
What's wrong with that?? These cars get flat out beat on (moreso because they're not RWD, cops seem to like the traditional setup) ring up 150,000 mi. in 3 yrs, and when they're not moving, the engines idle the rest of the time. Not to mention the body damage they encounter. Sounds to me like you'd need a REAL car for that.
"You talked about how successful Chevy has been. I pointed out that the Chevy brand sales are down 5.8% for the year. I don't call that successful when Toyota is gaining market share. Perhaps your definition of success is different than mine. Your quote above even admits that they may go from the largest brand in 2006 to the second largest brand in 2007. I suppose you'd call a slip to the #3 brand even more successful. "
Toyota's sales were down last month just like Chevy's. we will see new results for May tomorrow. I do not call the #1 brand (possibly #2 in 2007) a sales failure and anyone who does is being unrealistic. YOu do not say that a brand that sells well over 2 millions vehicles a year needs new marketing because it lacks mass appeal. That notion is completely counterintuitive and cant be made by anyone thinking logically. The fact that Chevy does so well is proof that their products and presumbably their ads are well received. When its all said and done you have no proof that their ads are offending people, all you have is your opinion.
BTW, Honda isnt #1, #2, or #3 in sales in the US but I bet you wouldnt call them a "struggling" brand that needs to revamp it's ad campaign. Stop with the double standards.
"See above. Dropping market share isn't struggling? That's funny. "
You need to know the difference between sales being down over a period of time and falling market share. If the market is down in general than Chevy's sales drop doesnt necessarily reprent a drop in share. Even if it does, I hardly consider one quarter of a year to be enough to determine a permanent trend, especially when Chevy was #1 in 2005 and 2006. Nissan, VW, Ford and others are also losing share so based on your logic half the industry needs to dump their ad campaigns ASAP.
"I'm looking at the downward trend and saying that this is a problem. Isn't that what got GM into its current problems over the last 30 years -- declining market share? By your definition this is success. "
Due to the 1st quarter results (it would be helpful if you provided Toyota and Ford numbers for comparison) you are ready to say Chevy is collapsing. WHat a joke. Chevy is doing pretty well, the other brands at GM are primarily responsible for marketshare loses. Olds doesnt exist anymore (they were selling 1 million + cars in the 80s) and Buick and Pontiac are much smaller than they were 20-30 years ago. Chevy is about the only "old" GM brand that is as strong as it was years ago. Your whole point makes little sense to me. You dont like "patriotic" ads and you are twisting the facts around to "prove" that these ads are helping to sink Chevy. Every brand in the US except Toyota would like to be where Chevy is today. You say that "big" doesnt equal success but when people like you are bragging about Toyota's rise to the top its ALWAYS about how big they are. Make up your mind. If sales dont count then we might as well say Toyota isnt doing that great in the US market.
Fleet sales are always bad!!! Well, unless the we are talking about camrys, sonatas, Galants, Altimas, Maximas or any of the other imports you'll see on rental lots.
Let me ask the GM cheerleaders, do you guys think GM has no room for improvement? If you are in charge to run GM, you seriously wouldn't do anything differently?
I am pretty sure the regulars here know me as "import-biased" but I would not go as far as to say all imports are doing dandy and there are no needs for improvement.
I must disagree, when the fleet sales are for vehicles that spend their ENTIRE LIFE in service to their original owners, and then get junked or wholesaled at pennies on the dollar, as opposed to being sold as a 1 yr old car. Belive me, I work for Verizon, and all we have are Big 3 material, and they take a beating for the 10-15 yrs they are in service. Then they get wholesaled, and contractor end up buying them. I put municipal vehicles and taxis in the same category. Rental cars are a wholly different animal.
you offered no substantive reasons why the cars I mentioned were not competitive,
I thought I made this substantively clear, but apparently not, so let met break it down. The vehicles started off competitive when initially designed (not the best but quite competitive.) Then GM let the designs languish, and this older design had to compete with the next two redesigns of the competition, at which point the GMs were NOT competitive, being older designs (possibly "reskinned" but still older designs). This was a common mistake on GM's part, a mistake all their own, that they can't blame anyone else for. Remember the Cavalier? initially it was a GREAT car...well-designed and highly competitive. But 10 years later, it was a decade old design trying to compete with recently redesigned (not just reskinned) models, and was no longer competitive. Some models sat for so long that GM ended up killing the nameplate (Olds).
the bottom line is that GM Europe is part of GM and European products show what GM can do when it has the ability to charge premium prices and everyone faces the same labor cost situation.
That's just silly. NOTHING is stopping GM from taking those SAME EXACT models, wherever they're built, and selling them HERE instead of in Europe, so the labor cost isn't a factor. They would be made in the same place the European models are made. Not all of which are made in Europe. So GM faces the same labor cost situation either way. Canada also had universal healthcare, and GM has long built many models in Canada. Your argument pretends as if GM still makes every car it sells domestically, and everyone knows that's no longer the case.
the Grand Am was redesigned for 1999 MY
Wrong. The Grand Am was RESKINNED for MY 1999, not "re-designed." GM's habit of trying to pass off new sheetmetal as a ground-up redesign to compete with other manufacturer's ground-up redesigns has hurt GM in the past. That's one of the problems GM needs to fix with itself. They CAN design and build competitive vehicles...they just need to do it as often as the competition so their vehicles REMAIN competitive. Apparently their designs aren't as cost-effective, as they have to amortize them over the course of an entire decade. Either that or they're just being cheap.
Back to the G6...came in in 2004. The current Accord was released on 2003, and a redesign is coming out for 2008 last I heard. Camry was just redesigned this year after 4 years, as was the Altima. 3-4 year cycle. Your previous Grand Am want 7 years between redesigns. The question becomes whether or not they'll do the same with the G6. There IS hope, given that the last Chevy Malibu debuted in 2004, and is being redesigned for the upcoming 2008 model year, so possibly GM is getting around to breaking their old cycle. But the last Malibu was released in 1997 and didn't get redesigned until 8 years later, which shows GM's habit of letting their models languish...usually in the last half of their long lives they don't even get advertised, and they're certainly not competitive under that long model life system. Hopefully that's changing now but that change needs to stick, and it needs to be pervasive across GM.
"cant honeslty believe the the pay of a few GM top execs is enough to make a difference in GM's labor costs. First of all GM execs pay is far from the highest in corporate america, they are pretty modestly paid compared to execs in other industries.
Please provide an example of this modestness, and then compare it to similar level executive pay in Europe. Also look at the employment contracts for said American executives, who basically get paid extra when they're fired for doing a rotten job. Apparently we have different definitions of modest. My definition of modest executive pay is a percentage of corporate profit and/or growth, not being paid $5 million when my company decides to fire me because I stink at my job.
Nothing in and of itself, but it's a correction that has to be noted versus any other manufacturer who's sales are purely via dealers....fleet sales are at a significant discount to fleet buyers, and typically aren't as profitable as dealer sales (the old "bulk discount" and all).
No, really fleet sales ARE always bad. They're a lower profit than regular sales, because the buyer is buying in bulk. They're also bad because they tend to lower resale value as well (which is why Honda refuses to sell to fleets). So, yeah, they're bad for Camrys, Sonatas, Altimas, etc. as well. Ideally one would use older, outdated models to sell to fleets exclusively, something that wouldn't be sold through dealers, so there's no loss by selling at fleet discount and resale value versus the retail version isn't a factor. The "Chevy Classic" idea with the older Malibus was a good one in that situation; too bad they didn't stick with it. Ford does this right, as basically the Crown Vic exists solely for fleet sales.
This has come up several times - the idea of making a nameplate just for fleet sales. It's not a half bad idea. Someone suggested Classic in honor of the old Malibus that were renamed Classic when they kept making the old model for fleet sales while using the Malibu name only for the new model. I've got a better name - Oldsmobile! They certainly aren't doing anything with that name....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Belive me, they have plenty of room for improvement. I think, their biggest problem over the last 15 yrs or so has been the fact that they are building "american" cars. A blogger pointed out a couple of days ago that Americans have abandoned traditional american luxury for a european inspired sportiness. This is a changeover we are beginning to witness at Cadillac, Saturn, and hopefully the Lambda crossovers, and with the G8 (hopefully). Cars like the Lacross, Lucerne, and DTS are still traditional "american" cars, and I think that is why they appeal to an older set
This has come up several times - the idea of making a nameplate just for fleet sales. It's not a half bad idea.
In the final few years of the original RWD Impala, that's what Chevy pretty much did. In swan-song 1985, something like 53,000 Impalas were sold, all of them 4-door sedans, in contrast to about 210,000 Caprices, which were still offered as sedans, coupes, and wagons. Now the Impala was still available to the public, but a great deal of them were sold as taxis, police cars, rental cars, etc.
For 1986, the Impala nameplate went away, but the trim level was still in the Caprice lineup. Instead of the Impala/Caprice/Caprice Classic lineup they had for 1985, they went to something like Caprice/Caprice Classic/Caprice Classic Brougham/Caprice Classic Brougham LS.
Personally, I don't think fleet cars are bad, in and of themselves. After all, the cops, cabbies, rental fleets, etc need cars too. However, the problem arises when the general public aren't really buying the cars, but to keep production going and the total sales numbers high, they start dumping vast loads of them into fleets.
That is as concise a statement of the current GM as I have heard. It's why I've been saying I have every indication that they "get it." They will be fine as long as they don't get happy feet when gas goes down a quarter for a month and start cranking out Trailblazers again.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"Personally, I don't think fleet cars are bad, in and of themselves. After all, the cops, cabbies, rental fleets, etc need cars too. However, the problem arises when the general public aren't really buying the cars, but to keep production going and the total sales numbers high, they start dumping vast loads of them into fleets."
Yes. Exactly. If they can get a fair price selling to fleets and keep them in reasonable numbers so they don't gut the resale value of their own vehicles they can be fine.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Fleet sales have the opposite effect on how I feel about a car. Any car I see being used as a police cruiser or taxicab is one I need to have as it must be pretty darn durable, reliable, and cost-effective to purchase, operate, and maintain.
Any car I see being used as a police cruiser or taxicab is one I need to have as it must be pretty darn durable, reliable, and cost-effective to purchase, operate, and maintain.
I used to feel that way, but nowadays I see just about anything under the sun put into taxi service. Once police departments started using light-duty stuff like Luminas, Grand Prixes, FWD Impalas, Tauruses, Intrepids, and 4.3 V-8 Caprices (the base 1994-96 engine), that pretty much knocked police cars off whatever pedestal I had put them on.
I dont know who the cheerleaders are, but you arent talking to me I presume. I'm still trying to find out who told you GM has no problems and is doing great. There is a such thing as constructive criticism and there is such thing as people just repeating tired old GM bashing lines without any regard for the complexity of the auto industry. Just because GM isnt where is wants to be doesnt make any and every negative comment valid. You can have a logical discusion with people who have a vendetta against domestic cars and refuse to acknowledge when progress is being made by GM or the shortcomings of foreign automakers. What I love is that whenever those shortcomings are mentioned people fall back on the "but this isnt a discussion about Toyota (or whomever) last time I checked".
The fact of the matter is that while GM has lost tons of share in 30 years (they had no where to go but down) it also true that they still sell more cars in the US than anyone else. Toyota is about 8 points behind in share (even after 5 years of ridiculous growth) and Nissan and Honda arent even close. Can GM get better? DEFINITELY. Is GM a complete failure as a company because they where unable to maintain 40% marketshare? No. Does GM maintain its #1 without any appreciable retail sales? No. Is every GM model that is successful only in that position because of Enterprise and gov. agencies as people here claim? No.
Is every GM model that is successful only in that position because of Enterprise and gov. agencies as people here claim? No.
And yet, how many of them are, versus how many successful models of other manufacturers? And does GM use fleet sales numbers to turn a vehicle into a sales success, when it wouldn't be otherwise (and since it's a fleet sale, less is made on the sale of each model)? And will GM, having tried to cut out fleet sales, fall back on them again at a later date, returning to old habit?
let me make this very clear, you are providing answers to questions you didnt ask. You simply said that GM has not designed a competent midsize car until 2006. I disputed that and provided a few examples. Now you are saying my examples are invalid because in your opinion those cars were not continually updated throughout their lifespans. Honestly, a has nothing to do with b. My point still stands, GM has introduced competent midsize cars prior to the Aura. If you are arguing that GM used to let some models go too long without a redesign, that is fine with me. I agree with that sentiment.
"That's just silly. NOTHING is stopping GM from taking those SAME EXACT models, wherever they're built, and selling them HERE instead of in Europe, so the labor cost isn't a factor. "
You are totally missing the point. GM can charge premium prices for cars in Europe and Australia and thus they get better cars with more options. Check the prices of the Astra, Vectra, Commodore, etc. in US dollars. Same for Ford models. The commodore that will be coming to the US as the G8 sells for $40k + in US dollars in Australia. That means Holden is probably making a profit on those cars. Guess what? In the US the G8 wont be able to command that type of price and GM will probably be lucky to break even. Bringing cars to the US that were not designed to be sold here is very expensive for many reasons. IN addition to that you have capacity issues which is why the Astra will be limited to 40k or so units for Saturn. You cannot just waive a magic wand and make European cars appear in the US. Are you even familiar with the exchange rate issues that make it very expensive to sell Euro produced cars here? Obviously not. It's not EASY to do the things you are talking about, trust me.
"Wrong. The Grand Am was RESKINNED for MY 1999, not "re-designed." GM's habit of trying to pass off new sheetmetal as a ground-up redesign to compete with other manufacturer's ground-up redesigns has hurt GM in the past. "
You are 100% wrong here. The Grand Am and Alero were new on the Malibu's platform for 1999. This is common knowledge. The previous platform didnt even have an IRS so there is no way it was a "reskin". The 99 GA was slightly larger, had all new sheetmetal, all new interior, more power and better handling. How is that reskin?
"Back to the G6...came in in 2004. The current Accord was released on 2003, and a redesign is coming out for 2008 last I heard. Camry was just redesigned this year after 4 years, as was the Altima. 3-4 year cycle."
Wrong! The altima was around for 5 years, 2002MY-2006MY. The Accord is redesigned every 5 years. The camry was around for FIVE years, 2002-2006MY and most camrys are on this schedule. Most GM cars are redesigned every 6 years. No mainstream cars are redesigned every 3-4 years as you claimed. Generally speaking, GM models are around one year longer than their Asian counterparts. European cars are usually around for 7 years before a redesign. The corolla is in its 7th year as we speak.
Last malibu was around 7 model years (not eight) as was the GP. The Grand Am was around 6 years and the Regal was around 7.
"Please provide an example of this modestness, and then compare it to similar level executive pay in Europe. Also look at the employment contracts for said American executives, who basically get paid extra when they're fired for doing a rotten job. Apparently we have different definitions of modest. My definition of modest executive pay is a percentage of corporate profit and/or growth, not being paid $5 million when my company decides to fire me because I stink at my job. "
I dont know anything about Exec pay in Europe. I do know its ridiculous to think that severe cuts in GM exec pay could make up for all the money they pay for employee healthcare and retirement benefits. Its just common sense. GM execs are not poor, but I've never seen them topping any list of private executive pay for US companies. Have you?
"And will GM, having tried to cut out fleet sales, fall back on them again at a later date, returning to old habit? "
I love it, instead of acknowledging the positive moves GM is making in terms of fleet sales you want us to bet on the fact that they will go back to the old ways even though there is no evidence to support that notion. Thats like saying "Toyota may be committed to quality now, but how do we know they will be a year from now". It in Toyota's best interest to be committed to quality just like its in GM's long term interest to boost residuals and limit rental sales. common sense would dictate that any positive changes GM gets in the 2007 contract from the UAW would mean GM would be MUCH less likely to need to turn to fleet sales to keep factories running. I would think GM would be able to cut fleet sales even more if they get decent concessions from the UAW.
If you are arguing that GM used to let some models go too long without a redesign, that is fine with me. I agree with that sentiment.
That is what I'm arguing. The problem with doing that is that they're only competitive 50% of the time: when GM's new model comes out. The rest of the time...well, you know. Ahoy rental fleets.
I'm going to let someone else address the redesign times you stated, but they're off. Honda/Toyota are typically on a 3-4 year cycle...Nissan is a little more variable (read: unpredictable) but I think they're trying to hit that. GM until recently went 7-8...the "Euro" model cycle, without the "Euro" car. Which just doesn't work for GM, because their models were never designed to be competitive for that long. Seems like they're trying to change that (A very good thing) but they need to stay consistent about it rather than going back to old form. Meaning there needs to be a new Cobalt soon too.
that aint happening, the midsize body on frame SUVS are headed to the graveyard. Soon there will just be lambdas and full size SUvs from GM and the full sizers will have hybrid options. GM aint getting out of the truck business, but I dont believe they have any illusions about gas going back to $1.50 a gallon. Hybrid development, the Astra, next gen corsa, etc. show that GM is trying to cover the fuel efficient side of the market.
I love it, instead of acknowledging the positive moves GM is making in terms of fleet sales you want us to bet on the fact that they will go back to the old ways even though there is no evidence to support that notion.
I'm betting on nothing. I'm acknowledging the positive move while pointing out that it needs to be maintained rather than aborted halfway.
Thats like saying "Toyota may be committed to quality now, but how do we know they will be a year from now".
People asked that about Toyota last year, and are now getting transmissions replaced. Just proves that you never know, hmm?
"I'm going to let someone else address the redesign times you stated, but they're off. Honda/Toyota are typically on a 3-4 year cycle...Nissan is a little more variable (read: unpredictable) but I think they're trying to hit that. GM until recently went 7-8...the "Euro" model cycle, without the "Euro" car. Which just doesn't work for GM, because their models were never designed to be competitive for that long. Seems like they're trying to change that (A very good thing) but they need to stay consistent about it rather than going back to old form. Meaning there needs to be a new Cobalt soon too. "
Even when 100% wrong you still wont give up. The Accord and Camry are typically on 5 YEAR schedules. This is common knowledge. The camry was new in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007. What part of that is confusing to you? The Accord was new in 1997, 2003 and will be in 2008. The civic was new in 1996, 2001 and 2006. Hondas and Toyotas are absolutely NOT on 3-4 year cycles and there is no proof to the contrary. As I clearly stated, GM models are generally on 6 year timetables and MOST (not all) Asian cars on on 5 year timetables.
The cobalt was new in 2004 which means a new model would be due in 2009 at GM's current pace. As far as I know new Delta platform cars are coming in 2009 or 2010. The replacement platform for Aura/G6/Malibu debuts next year in Europe and the Aura/G6 should be replaced in the 2009-2010 timeframe. The GP is being replaced after 5 model years on the market.
I certainly hope you are right on the SUVs. Let those old models die.
I would certainly hope GM doesn't get out of the truck business! They make great trucks. The problem for me has been the cars that pretend to be trucks (or vice versa). There will always be loads of market for solid, well made trucks.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
So, the question now becomes are the foreign (read: euro styled) cars better, or just different than "American" cars. Even if you compare the STS (euro)and the DTS (American), and not just the Impala and Camry.
True. and they probably could pick up the slack of losing the Tahoe by making a Tahoe (based on the Suburban anyhow) along the lines of the original Blazer, removable roof and all.
Crown Victoria is used for Police & Highway Patrol around this part of CA. Have not seen any FWD, other than a Camry used by police in a smaller coast town. For awhile, they had Mustangs for chase cars. Nevada used Camaros for years and years. Loren
Kinda killed the luxury image though for the Vic and the Grand Marquis. having them seen as more of a cab, or a police car. Yes, I know they use expensive cars to police the autobahn. In the USA they don't usually go upscale for police cars, unless you go back some years. There was the buick, and the Broderick Crawford years :shades: Loren
fleet sales are at a significant discount to fleet buyers, and typically aren't as profitable as dealer sales
not true, most fleet sales (minus rental) are as profitable as sales to dealers. There is very little overhead and no need for advertising. All you do for police is put a little special equipment on them, take them to government testing and they decide which they want after testing. They choose by looking at factual data and history.
Wrong. Obviously you are misinformed. Sales to business's (and police) are hugely profitable and are just more sales for the OEM's. If what you said is true, that additional profitable sales are bad, then I guess you should tell all the OEM's to lower production and increase profit. While that may happen the real profit in a company is with plants at full capacity selling at a competitive profit.
Somehow he still managed to double his compensation. Funny how that works.
None of them got much more in pocket cash for the year. They get a promise that if the stock they were given to hold goes up in value they get the difference. So they need to stay with the company and make the price go up to get the money. If GM was to double the stock price (and it will happen) they get 1/2 of the value if they cash it in.
Back in the early 80s one of the local towns had a VW Rabbit police car. They actually had a guy trying to get out of a ticket with the defense of he didn't believe a Rabbit was a police car so he kept going.
Now if his defense was he couldn't believe the Rabbit couldn't go more than a mile without breaking down he might have had something...
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Survey: U.S. automakers continue to lose money on vehicles built in North America
DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. lost $5,234 on each vehicle it built in North America last year, a shortfall that's nearly eightfold what it was a year earlier, according to a much-watched study on labor productivity released today.
Nissan Motor Co. again was the most profitable automaker on a per vehicle basis followed by Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. Nissan made $1,575 per vehicle sold in North America. In contrast, Toyota made $1,266 per vehicle, while Honda made $1,368.
Each of Detroit's automakers lost money, according to the Harbour Report.
GM was the only automaker to improve its profitability per vehicle. Even with the improvement, GM loses $1,436 per vehicle, trailed only by Ford. The Chrysler Group lost $1,072 per vehicle.
GM's plan to boost residuals (cut fleet sales, reduce incentives, lower prices) has been ongoing for about a year and a half, its nothing new and they have shown no signs of changing course. They still have the lowest incentives of the Big 3.
Heck, I see Lincoln Town Cars used as taxicabs in Philly. Why not? They are essentially plusher versions of Crown Vics and Grand Marquises anyway. It's funny seeing a Town Car done up in the many liveries of Philly taxicab companies.
Ya know, a Rabbit for a police car would be pretty cheap. You buy two rabbits, park them next to each other for the night, and soon you have a whole fleet. Loren
One of my friends has an aunt and uncle who have a 1996 or so Town Car. I've been in it a few times, and, I'm sad to say, it beats the hell out of the current Town Car. Even though the current Town Car is the same basic thing, it just feels like they really cheaped out on the inside of the newer models.
One of my friends has an '04 Crown Vic LX (an upper trim level), and before that he had a '95 Grand Marquis GS (the low-line model). I swear, the Grand Marquis was nicer inside. Part of it might have been the color though, as the Grand Marquis was a nice, deep, rich blue cloth interior, whereas the Crown Vic is kind of a stark gray leather/plastic.
They've definitely been cheapening these cars over the years, although they have made some definite improvements under the skin. For example, the 1998 models got an improved rear suspension (whatever a "Watts Linkage" is), and in 2004 they got rack and pinion steering and a hydroformed frame. Unfortunately though, the styling just hasn't changed much, and I'd imagine that prospective buyers just got bored with it.
Back around 1960-61, Philadelphia tried using Ford Falcons as police cars. Trouble is, they didn't hold up very well. Philadelphia police cars of that time were painted all red. Instead of saying, "call the cops" when a crime was committed, you'd say "call a red car!"
I've seen pictures and video of Ford Crown Victorias used as Moscow, Russia police cars in addition to their usual Ladas and Volgas.
The NYCPD only used Chevrolets once in the 1960s - 1966. I think they used Pontiacs in 1962.
Pittsburgh used FWD Oldsmobile Delta 88s at one time.
The Pennsylvania State Police used Chevrolet Malibus in the early '80s with the Rally wheels.
The Philadelphia Police use a variety of cars - mostly Ford Crown Victorias, Chevrolet Impalas both old and new style, a few Dodge Chargers, and some SUVs.
gm and ford have cut back on fleet sales because they are not profitable and it lowers resale value of their cars...that is one of the reasons toyota overtook GM this year in sales, fleet cutbacks
Comments
I think they're a bit more sporty, and maybe people 'round DC are a bit more agressive??? I dunno but I hope Saturn can retain some of that flair; to be a sporty FWD brand like nissan and mazda compared to Chevy (Toyota/Ford/Honda).
"By the way, you pointed out that GM is doing well in Europe (Ford is as well). Keep in mind that the cars sold to Europeans are different than the ones we CURRENTLY get here (Euro Focus and Astra as two quick examples). BOth brands "Euro-izing" their American lineups (Fusion is pretty Euro, and Saturn is getting Opels now) may help with sales in the States, but the question becomes, what took so freaking long? "
Again, its hard to criticize GM when you have little clue as to how the industry works. GM and Ford offer better cars in Europe for numerours reasons. a) small cars in Europe can be seen as premium and thus you can sell a compact over there for over $30k in US dollars. GM and Ford can offer top notch small and midsize cars with all kinds of power and upscale options because people will pay for them over there. In the US small cars are at the bottom of the foodchain and the cost structure here makes it unprofitable for the Big 3 to make cars under $20k here. b) In Europe labor costs are high across the board and health costs are picked up by governments over there so GM has a much more level playing field. Even though the Aura is based on the Vectra, the Opel model has far more options than the Saturn. The reason is that they can charge prices for an Opel that Saturn cant even dream of for the Aura.
Your contention is that GM has been in a downward spiral for decades and in unable to design product that can stand up to Toyota and Honda, etc. While you may want to make excuses, the bottom line is that GM Europe is part of GM and European products show what GM can do when it has the ability to charge premium prices and everyone faces the same labor cost situation.
"Make a correction in their executive pay and retirement packages, stop giving bonuses to executives while cutting UAW benefits due to poor corporate performance (and if the corporation is performing so poorly, why do these executives deserve bonuses, hmm?). Many of today's problems can be partially attributed to the American corporate "culture" that consistently rewards high level executives for poor performance. "
Ridiculous answer, you cant honeslty believe the the pay of a few GM top execs is enough to make a difference in GM's labor costs. First of all GM execs pay is far from the highest in corporate america, they are pretty modestly paid compared to execs in other industries. AS I said there are no easy answers to the cost structure issues and your "cut executive pay" solution is a cop out answer that proves you have no cure alls for the high legacy costs faced by GM.
"One is successor to the other. The Grand Am started off decently enough, as a reasonably (though not highly) competitive vehicle. Then it sat for a decade without major redesign. "
Totally incorrect, the Grand Am was redesigned for 1999 MY and was replaced by G6 in 2004. Where do you come up with this stuff?
What's wrong with that?? These cars get flat out beat on (moreso because they're not RWD, cops seem to like the traditional setup) ring up 150,000 mi. in 3 yrs, and when they're not moving, the engines idle the rest of the time. Not to mention the body damage they encounter. Sounds to me like you'd need a REAL car for that.
"You talked about how successful Chevy has been. I pointed out that the Chevy brand sales are down 5.8% for the year. I don't call that successful when Toyota is gaining market share. Perhaps your definition of success is different than mine. Your quote above even admits that they may go from the largest brand in 2006 to the second largest brand in 2007. I suppose you'd call a slip to the #3 brand even more successful. "
Toyota's sales were down last month just like Chevy's. we will see new results for May tomorrow. I do not call the #1 brand (possibly #2 in 2007) a sales failure and anyone who does is being unrealistic. YOu do not say that a brand that sells well over 2 millions vehicles a year needs new marketing because it lacks mass appeal. That notion is completely counterintuitive and cant be made by anyone thinking logically. The fact that Chevy does so well is proof that their products and presumbably their ads are well received. When its all said and done you have no proof that their ads are offending people, all you have is your opinion.
BTW, Honda isnt #1, #2, or #3 in sales in the US but I bet you wouldnt call them a "struggling" brand that needs to revamp it's ad campaign. Stop with the double standards.
"See above. Dropping market share isn't struggling? That's funny. "
You need to know the difference between sales being down over a period of time and falling market share. If the market is down in general than Chevy's sales drop doesnt necessarily reprent a drop in share. Even if it does, I hardly consider one quarter of a year to be enough to determine a permanent trend, especially when Chevy was #1 in 2005 and 2006. Nissan, VW, Ford and others are also losing share so based on your logic half the industry needs to dump their ad campaigns ASAP.
"I'm looking at the downward trend and saying that this is a problem. Isn't that what got GM into its current problems over the last 30 years -- declining market share? By your definition this is success. "
Due to the 1st quarter results (it would be helpful if you provided Toyota and Ford numbers for comparison) you are ready to say Chevy is collapsing. WHat a joke. Chevy is doing pretty well, the other brands at GM are primarily responsible for marketshare loses. Olds doesnt exist anymore (they were selling 1 million + cars in the 80s) and Buick and Pontiac are much smaller than they were 20-30 years ago. Chevy is about the only "old" GM brand that is as strong as it was years ago. Your whole point makes little sense to me. You dont like "patriotic" ads and you are twisting the facts around to "prove" that these ads are helping to sink Chevy. Every brand in the US except Toyota would like to be where Chevy is today. You say that "big" doesnt equal success but when people like you are bragging about Toyota's rise to the top its ALWAYS about how big they are. Make up your mind. If sales dont count then we might as well say Toyota isnt doing that great in the US market.
:confuse:
Let me ask the GM cheerleaders, do you guys think GM has no room for improvement? If you are in charge to run GM, you seriously wouldn't do anything differently?
I am pretty sure the regulars here know me as "import-biased" but I would not go as far as to say all imports are doing dandy and there are no needs for improvement.
Nevertheless the GM...
I thought I made this substantively clear, but apparently not, so let met break it down. The vehicles started off competitive when initially designed (not the best but quite competitive.) Then GM let the designs languish, and this older design had to compete with the next two redesigns of the competition, at which point the GMs were NOT competitive, being older designs (possibly "reskinned" but still older designs). This was a common mistake on GM's part, a mistake all their own, that they can't blame anyone else for. Remember the Cavalier? initially it was a GREAT car...well-designed and highly competitive. But 10 years later, it was a decade old design trying to compete with recently redesigned (not just reskinned) models, and was no longer competitive. Some models sat for so long that GM ended up killing the nameplate (Olds).
the bottom line is that GM Europe is part of GM and European products show what GM can do when it has the ability to charge premium prices and everyone faces the same labor cost situation.
That's just silly. NOTHING is stopping GM from taking those SAME EXACT models, wherever they're built, and selling them HERE instead of in Europe, so the labor cost isn't a factor. They would be made in the same place the European models are made. Not all of which are made in Europe. So GM faces the same labor cost situation either way. Canada also had universal healthcare, and GM has long built many models in Canada. Your argument pretends as if GM still makes every car it sells domestically, and everyone knows that's no longer the case.
the Grand Am was redesigned for 1999 MY
Wrong. The Grand Am was RESKINNED for MY 1999, not "re-designed." GM's habit of trying to pass off new sheetmetal as a ground-up redesign to compete with other manufacturer's ground-up redesigns has hurt GM in the past. That's one of the problems GM needs to fix with itself. They CAN design and build competitive vehicles...they just need to do it as often as the competition so their vehicles REMAIN competitive. Apparently their designs aren't as cost-effective, as they have to amortize them over the course of an entire decade. Either that or they're just being cheap.
Back to the G6...came in in 2004. The current Accord was released on 2003, and a redesign is coming out for 2008 last I heard. Camry was just redesigned this year after 4 years, as was the Altima. 3-4 year cycle. Your previous Grand Am want 7 years between redesigns. The question becomes whether or not they'll do the same with the G6. There IS hope, given that the last Chevy Malibu debuted in 2004, and is being redesigned for the upcoming 2008 model year, so possibly GM is getting around to breaking their old cycle. But the last Malibu was released in 1997 and didn't get redesigned until 8 years later, which shows GM's habit of letting their models languish...usually in the last half of their long lives they don't even get advertised, and they're certainly not competitive under that long model life system. Hopefully that's changing now but that change needs to stick, and it needs to be pervasive across GM.
"cant honeslty believe the the pay of a few GM top execs is enough to make a difference in GM's labor costs. First of all GM execs pay is far from the highest in corporate america, they are pretty modestly paid compared to execs in other industries.
Please provide an example of this modestness, and then compare it to similar level executive pay in Europe. Also look at the employment contracts for said American executives, who basically get paid extra when they're fired for doing a rotten job. Apparently we have different definitions of modest. My definition of modest executive pay is a percentage of corporate profit and/or growth, not being paid $5 million when my company decides to fire me because I stink at my job.
In the final few years of the original RWD Impala, that's what Chevy pretty much did. In swan-song 1985, something like 53,000 Impalas were sold, all of them 4-door sedans, in contrast to about 210,000 Caprices, which were still offered as sedans, coupes, and wagons. Now the Impala was still available to the public, but a great deal of them were sold as taxis, police cars, rental cars, etc.
For 1986, the Impala nameplate went away, but the trim level was still in the Caprice lineup. Instead of the Impala/Caprice/Caprice Classic lineup they had for 1985, they went to something like Caprice/Caprice Classic/Caprice Classic Brougham/Caprice Classic Brougham LS.
Personally, I don't think fleet cars are bad, in and of themselves. After all, the cops, cabbies, rental fleets, etc need cars too. However, the problem arises when the general public aren't really buying the cars, but to keep production going and the total sales numbers high, they start dumping vast loads of them into fleets.
That is as concise a statement of the current GM as I have heard. It's why I've been saying I have every indication that they "get it." They will be fine as long as they don't get happy feet when gas goes down a quarter for a month and start cranking out Trailblazers again.
"Hey, Charlie! Start the Suburban and Trailblazer lines back up!"
:P
Yes. Exactly. If they can get a fair price selling to fleets and keep them in reasonable numbers so they don't gut the resale value of their own vehicles they can be fine.
I used to feel that way, but nowadays I see just about anything under the sun put into taxi service. Once police departments started using light-duty stuff like Luminas, Grand Prixes, FWD Impalas, Tauruses, Intrepids, and 4.3 V-8 Caprices (the base 1994-96 engine), that pretty much knocked police cars off whatever pedestal I had put them on.
The fact of the matter is that while GM has lost tons of share in 30 years (they had no where to go but down) it also true that they still sell more cars in the US than anyone else. Toyota is about 8 points behind in share (even after 5 years of ridiculous growth) and Nissan and Honda arent even close. Can GM get better? DEFINITELY. Is GM a complete failure as a company because they where unable to maintain 40% marketshare? No. Does GM maintain its #1 without any appreciable retail sales? No. Is every GM model that is successful only in that position because of Enterprise and gov. agencies as people here claim? No.
And yet, how many of them are, versus how many successful models of other manufacturers? And does GM use fleet sales numbers to turn a vehicle into a sales success, when it wouldn't be otherwise (and since it's a fleet sale, less is made on the sale of each model)? And will GM, having tried to cut out fleet sales, fall back on them again at a later date, returning to old habit?
These are all valid questions.
"That's just silly. NOTHING is stopping GM from taking those SAME EXACT models, wherever they're built, and selling them HERE instead of in Europe, so the labor cost isn't a factor. "
You are totally missing the point. GM can charge premium prices for cars in Europe and Australia and thus they get better cars with more options. Check the prices of the Astra, Vectra, Commodore, etc. in US dollars. Same for Ford models. The commodore that will be coming to the US as the G8 sells for $40k + in US dollars in Australia. That means Holden is probably making a profit on those cars. Guess what? In the US the G8 wont be able to command that type of price and GM will probably be lucky to break even. Bringing cars to the US that were not designed to be sold here is very expensive for many reasons. IN addition to that you have capacity issues which is why the Astra will be limited to 40k or so units for Saturn. You cannot just waive a magic wand and make European cars appear in the US. Are you even familiar with the exchange rate issues that make it very expensive to sell Euro produced cars here? Obviously not. It's not EASY to do the things you are talking about, trust me.
"Wrong. The Grand Am was RESKINNED for MY 1999, not "re-designed." GM's habit of trying to pass off new sheetmetal as a ground-up redesign to compete with other manufacturer's ground-up redesigns has hurt GM in the past. "
You are 100% wrong here. The Grand Am and Alero were new on the Malibu's platform for 1999. This is common knowledge. The previous platform didnt even have an IRS so there is no way it was a "reskin". The 99 GA was slightly larger, had all new sheetmetal, all new interior, more power and better handling. How is that reskin?
"Back to the G6...came in in 2004. The current Accord was released on 2003, and a redesign is coming out for 2008 last I heard. Camry was just redesigned this year after 4 years, as was the Altima. 3-4 year cycle."
Wrong! The altima was around for 5 years, 2002MY-2006MY. The Accord is redesigned every 5 years. The camry was around for FIVE years, 2002-2006MY and most camrys are on this schedule. Most GM cars are redesigned every 6 years. No mainstream cars are redesigned every 3-4 years as you claimed. Generally speaking, GM models are around one year longer than their Asian counterparts. European cars are usually around for 7 years before a redesign. The corolla is in its 7th year as we speak.
Last malibu was around 7 model years (not eight) as was the GP. The Grand Am was around 6 years and the Regal was around 7.
"Please provide an example of this modestness, and then compare it to similar level executive pay in Europe. Also look at the employment contracts for said American executives, who basically get paid extra when they're fired for doing a rotten job. Apparently we have different definitions of modest. My definition of modest executive pay is a percentage of corporate profit and/or growth, not being paid $5 million when my company decides to fire me because I stink at my job. "
I dont know anything about Exec pay in Europe. I do know its ridiculous to think that severe cuts in GM exec pay could make up for all the money they pay for employee healthcare and retirement benefits. Its just common sense. GM execs are not poor, but I've never seen them topping any list of private executive pay for US companies. Have you?
"
I love it, instead of acknowledging the positive moves GM is making in terms of fleet sales you want us to bet on the fact that they will go back to the old ways even though there is no evidence to support that notion. Thats like saying "Toyota may be committed to quality now, but how do we know they will be a year from now". It in Toyota's best interest to be committed to quality just like its in GM's long term interest to boost residuals and limit rental sales. common sense would dictate that any positive changes GM gets in the 2007 contract from the UAW would mean GM would be MUCH less likely to need to turn to fleet sales to keep factories running. I would think GM would be able to cut fleet sales even more if they get decent concessions from the UAW.
That is what I'm arguing. The problem with doing that is that they're only competitive 50% of the time: when GM's new model comes out. The rest of the time...well, you know. Ahoy rental fleets.
I'm going to let someone else address the redesign times you stated, but they're off. Honda/Toyota are typically on a 3-4 year cycle...Nissan is a little more variable (read: unpredictable) but I think they're trying to hit that. GM until recently went 7-8...the "Euro" model cycle, without the "Euro" car. Which just doesn't work for GM, because their models were never designed to be competitive for that long. Seems like they're trying to change that (A very good thing) but they need to stay consistent about it rather than going back to old form. Meaning there needs to be a new Cobalt soon too.
Somehow he still managed to double his compensation. Funny how that works.
GM Execs Cut Base Salaries (The Street)
Ford went from paying Bill nothing to laying ~$20 million on Mulally ($2 million salary plus bonuses).
I think the shareholders may be more concerned with GM's dividend cut than the exec's pay.
I'm betting on nothing. I'm acknowledging the positive move while pointing out that it needs to be maintained rather than aborted halfway.
Thats like saying "Toyota may be committed to quality now, but how do we know they will be a year from now".
People asked that about Toyota last year, and are now getting transmissions replaced.
Even when 100% wrong you still wont give up. The Accord and Camry are typically on 5 YEAR schedules. This is common knowledge. The camry was new in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2007. What part of that is confusing to you? The Accord was new in 1997, 2003 and will be in 2008. The civic was new in 1996, 2001 and 2006. Hondas and Toyotas are absolutely NOT on 3-4 year cycles and there is no proof to the contrary. As I clearly stated, GM models are generally on 6 year timetables and MOST (not all) Asian cars on on 5 year timetables.
The cobalt was new in 2004 which means a new model would be due in 2009 at GM's current pace. As far as I know new Delta platform cars are coming in 2009 or 2010. The replacement platform for Aura/G6/Malibu debuts next year in Europe and the Aura/G6 should be replaced in the 2009-2010 timeframe. The GP is being replaced after 5 model years on the market.
I would certainly hope GM doesn't get out of the truck business! They make great trucks. The problem for me has been the cars that pretend to be trucks (or vice versa). There will always be loads of market for solid, well made trucks.
Even if you compare the STS (euro)and the DTS (American), and not just the Impala and Camry.
Loren
Loren
Police sales are pretty small potatoes compared to retail volume.
not true, most fleet sales (minus rental) are as profitable as sales to dealers. There is very little overhead and no need for advertising. All you do for police is put a little special equipment on them, take them to government testing and they decide which they want after testing. They choose by looking at factual data and history.
Wrong. Obviously you are misinformed. Sales to business's (and police) are hugely profitable and are just more sales for the OEM's. If what you said is true, that additional profitable sales are bad, then I guess you should tell all the OEM's to lower production and increase profit. While that may happen the real profit in a company is with plants at full capacity selling at a competitive profit.
None of them got much more in pocket cash for the year. They get a promise that if the stock they were given to hold goes up in value they get the difference. So they need to stay with the company and make the price go up to get the money. If GM was to double the stock price (and it will happen) they get 1/2 of the value if they cash it in.
and now an engine recall.
Now if his defense was he couldn't believe the Rabbit couldn't go more than a mile without breaking down he might have had something...
DETROIT -- Ford Motor Co. lost $5,234 on each vehicle it built in North America last year, a shortfall that's nearly eightfold what it was a year earlier, according to a much-watched study on labor productivity released today.
Nissan Motor Co. again was the most profitable automaker on a per vehicle basis followed by Honda Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. Nissan made $1,575 per vehicle sold in North America. In contrast, Toyota made $1,266 per vehicle, while Honda made $1,368.
Each of Detroit's automakers lost money, according to the Harbour Report.
GM was the only automaker to improve its profitability per vehicle. Even with the improvement, GM loses $1,436 per vehicle, trailed only by Ford. The Chrysler Group lost $1,072 per vehicle.
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070531/UPDATE/705310465/1148/AUTO01
Loren
I have seen pictures of a 6-cylinder 1947 Packard that was once used as a taxicab. The big 1940s DeSotos used to be popular taxicabs.
Loren
One of my friends has an '04 Crown Vic LX (an upper trim level), and before that he had a '95 Grand Marquis GS (the low-line model). I swear, the Grand Marquis was nicer inside. Part of it might have been the color though, as the Grand Marquis was a nice, deep, rich blue cloth interior, whereas the Crown Vic is kind of a stark gray leather/plastic.
They've definitely been cheapening these cars over the years, although they have made some definite improvements under the skin. For example, the 1998 models got an improved rear suspension (whatever a "Watts Linkage" is), and in 2004 they got rack and pinion steering and a hydroformed frame. Unfortunately though, the styling just hasn't changed much, and I'd imagine that prospective buyers just got bored with it.
I've seen pictures and video of Ford Crown Victorias used as Moscow, Russia police cars in addition to their usual Ladas and Volgas.
The NYCPD only used Chevrolets once in the 1960s - 1966. I think they used Pontiacs in 1962.
Pittsburgh used FWD Oldsmobile Delta 88s at one time.
The Pennsylvania State Police used Chevrolet Malibus in the early '80s with the Rally wheels.
The Philadelphia Police use a variety of cars - mostly Ford Crown Victorias, Chevrolet Impalas both old and new style, a few Dodge Chargers, and some SUVs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt's_linkage