first of all the size of the wheel doesnt always dictate its weight relative to a smaller wheel.
Weight no, but everything else yes. It should be readily apparent that a 14" wheel will be lighter than a 19" wheel made of the same material, and there is no reason low-profile tires cannot be used on smaller rims. Rotor size is the only legitimate reason for using larger rims, and there are ways to address that concern as well.
you are wrong, my brother got a 3 in the first year and navigation was not offered. His car has every option that was available in 2005. No bose, no 5 speed, no nav, no auto climate control. Do you have any proof that factory nav was offerd the first year?
I did not know the Impreza had auto climate control, never seen that before. I highly doubt those cars are higly rated because of auto climate control.
just give it up, larger rims are here to stay and contrary to what you first said, they do have a reason for existing. They are not strictly a style statement. The amount of medal in a wheel depends on the design. Performance cars have designs with thin spokes for less weight. The 17s on a truck/SUV will weight more than the 19s on a vette due to design.
Proof? yeah, I sat in one and played with the NAV system. However, since you probably won't accept that, how about the model review/summary from here on Edmunds? Or from New Car Test Drive? http://www.nctd.com/review-intro.cfm?ReviewID=1507
Your brother may be driving the base 3i, in which nav wasn't available. It was available in the 3s trim.
Large wheel were on the very first cars made. They got smaller over time. They likely will again.
If you put light alloy wheels, say in size 16", they would improve the car, like the Cobalt. 18" or larger are for show and not go. And for braking, I doubt that is an issue except for race cars. If you are overheating your brakes, just get off of them. Stopping power? Well if the smaller brakes are not working, perhaps the brakes are crappy, the car weight in too piggish, or your foot is too light. Porsche used 15" wheels for years, did they not? For 18" wheels, I would say a larger car, with lots of HP, it may make at least some sense. Note the price difference come tire replacement time, and you may long for a 15-16 or even a 17" wheel again. Pity those replacing wagon wheels, like those 22" tires = ouch! I mean to say ouch for your pocket book, and ouch for the tire changer's back. :sick:
As for the Vette, the downsizing is well accepted I think, so why not go back to 17" or 18" front and back? Have two sizes for the track car or for those pretending to be pros. Oh hell, it doesn't matter, just upgrade to 22" front and 24" rear and be done with it. Head'em up - move'm out ! Loren
"We did see some when on vacation trip to as far east as Iowa trip. The thing is the amount of cars sold in California between San Diego and San Fransisco, must make up a huge amount of sales for USA. And right or wrong, what happens here seems to creep across the country."
You and others believe this but I dont know that its true. Imports are gaining favor all over and the NE part of the US is just as populous and influential as the west coast. With some exceptions (DC area for example) domestics do OK here as far as I can tell. Trust me, you will see plenty of domestics if you drive through PA, NJ, MD, NY, etc. I would say the higher income the area, the more imports you will see, but amongt working class and middle class people domestics are pretty common in this part of the US.
People are quick to say that on the west coats domestics are in trouble (they are) but the flip side is if you remove the west coast from the automotive market, the domestics wouldnt look nearly as bad as they do in terms of marketshare numbers.
You were finally 100% correct on something. I was wrong, I asked my brother and he confirmed that nav was available as you said. He does have the top model but thats the only option he doesnt have.
The rest of my point still stands. The 3 is a small time player in this segment with or without production limitations. The corolla just racked up record sales and that again proves people want great mileage, resale value and low pricing more than "premium" features in a compact. Unlike Europe, when people in the US think small they think the price tag should be small as well. The corolla is doing just fine and I believe it tops out at $21k or so and offers NOTHING in the way of upscale features,
Total Sales Up 4.7 Percent; Retail Sales Up 8.5 Percent Retail Sales of Full-Size Pickups Up 14 Percent, Led by the New Silverado and Sierra GMC Acadia, Saturn OUTLOOK and Buick Enclave Achieve Industry Mid-Crossover Segment Leadership with a 415 Percent Retail Sales Increase Chevrolet Impala, Pontiac G6 and Saturn AURA Drive 31 Percent Retail Sales Increase For Mid-Car Segment Saturn Leads Divisions with a 69 Percent Sales Increase GM now has a 23% share of mid crossover market.
On an unadjusted basis, retail sales were up 12.8 percent compared with a year ago.
Chevrolet was again the sales leader in the industry (up 5 percent).
Chevrolet Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, HHR, Silverado, Suburban, and Avalanche; Pontiac G6 and Solstice; Saturn SKY and VUE; Saab 9-3, GMC Sierra and Yukon XL; Buick Lucerne; Cadillac SRX, Escalade ESV and Escalade EXT; and HUMMER H3 all had May retail sales increases compared with a year ago.
GM Certified Used Vehicles, the industry's top-selling manufacturer-certified used brand, posted 40,306 sales, up nearly 5 percent from last May. Year-to-date sales for GM Certified Used Vehicles are 199,715 units, up 4 percent from the same period in 2006.
In May, GM North America produced 401,000 vehicles (139,000 cars and 262,000 trucks). This is down 25,000 units or 6 percent compared to May 2006 when the region produced 425,000 vehicles
Saturn sales are up 30% for the year and were up 69% last month so it appears they are finding a way to get people into dealerships. Keep in mind this is going to be a multi year process. The Outlook and Aura are new nameplates that have little recognition. Up until last year Saturn only sold minivans, small SUVs and small cars. Lets check back in 2-3 years and see how things are going.
"Total industry is expected to be down. Of course Edmunds was off again. It is turning into a 2 company fight. "
I dont know why edmunds bothers to try and predict sales in advance every month, as you said they are often wrong. Its kind of pointless to try and guess montly stats a week before they are published.
GM and Toyota are going strong right now. Nissan, Ford, Honda, etc. all lost share as far as I can tell.
Impala did outsell Accord last month by several thousand units, that is significant in my book.
I dont know why edmunds bothers to try and predict sales in advance every month, as you said they are often wrong. Its kind of pointless to try and guess montly stats a week before they are published.
It is not pointless. They are quoted every month everywhere and they are getting huge name recognition. That is the name of the game in this internet world. Get people to your site.
Well to quote Wikipedia As of 2005, The gross state product (GSP) is about $1.62 trillion, the largest in the country. California is responsible for 13% of the United States gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2005, California's GDP is larger than all but seven countries in the world (and all but eight countries by Purchasing Power Parity).
So it is pretty important to win the game here. Once the new cars, such as the Impala, New Malibu, Astra, Camaro, and Holdens are selling in California, and the rest of the West, we will have the answer as to how successful the new GM is. Cars like the Chrysler 300 were very much a hit here on the Left Coast. Looks like the Impala and Holdens as Pontiac could catch on. Just don't try to pass them off as a GTO with a large side sticker. Camaro was, and should be in the future a big hit upon introduction. It was all the rage in '67. The Astra I am pretty sure will sell well here. The Malibu, if not overpriced, should sell on value. Could pull sales from the Big Two of Japan. Still think it will pull sales from other GM makes though. IMHO, Saturn needs to do some ads with Aura and its little brother Astra together.
Now Impala outselling Accord seems hard to believe. Could not possibly be that many new retail sales to individuals. Some secrete extra discount allowances? Something sounds fishy. It is not advertised, as far as this area, they are not giving as much cash to customers, yet magically it is outselling Accord. Not arguing the merits of one car over the other, but Accords alway sell, and they are selling with discounts now, and plenty of advertising. The Impala is going to sell more than a couple years ago with a freshen up look, but in large numbers? What be the catalyst? Like to see the break-down of the books on that one.
Make or break years for GM vs. the world look to be but a year or two away, as we find out the acceptance of the new stuff from GM. So far the current SUV line of new cars hit the mark = score one. So this year and the following two years, we get the rest of the picture. Looks more promising than the prospect for Ford, but they may have a rabbit in the hat -- gosh they better have one. Ford trucks still sell, and they have Volvo and Mazda, if nothing else for use poorer to middle class to buy. The Ford car line looks to be in a holding patten. Circle in a holding pattern long enough however and you run out of gas and crash to the earth. Mustang modernization of the skin could help. 2008 may show us something. Mercury and Lincoln may be on life support now, which is sad. Those Mark car were so cool. Lincoln formal cars had so much class. Loren
Now Impala outselling Accord seems hard to believe. Could not possibly be that many new retail sales to individuals.
Impala was up about 44% in May. Retail sales were up 13% for all of GM. If you look at the numbers Grand Prix sales were way up and I bet most of that was rental fleet. Really doubt a lot of the Impala increase was due to rental fleet though I have no data so I will not type random thoughts on it.
The analyst said high gasoline prices and a weak housing market, particularly in Florida and California, have helped slow the U.S. auto industry. Ballew is optimistic that industry sales will pick up in coming years.
Ballew said GM's new products, which tout better fuel economy, helped lift the company's performance in May. The company's redesigned pickup trucks and new crossover vehicles showed notable momentum. Through five months, the company's retail sales have increased, but a cut to fleet sales has forced the company to take further market-share losses.
Despite the recent market-share losses, Ballew expects GM's share to be up about 1 percentage point in May compared with the same period in 2005 thanks to its big increase in retail sales. GM's inventory sits just below 1 million vehicles and Ballew declined to comment on whether the company will stockpile additional vehicles to prepare for a labor stoppage that could happen in relation to United Auto Worker contract negotiations slated to conclude in September.
GM continues to expect to sell 3 million retail vehicles in the U.S., but overall sales will likely fall as it pulls back from sales to rental car firms, which typically return lower margins. Ballew said GM spent about $2,900 per vehicle on incentives, raising overall incentives during the month. The increase included lifting pickup truck discounts and rebates by hundreds of dollars.
Anybody check out the incentives on the new Tundra? $3500 possible. Silverado is at $1000. (per Automotive News) Tundra is also offering 0% interest with GM's minium at 4.9%. (you can get $2000 off the classic but probably not many left)
By the number of posts, I was expecting more of same old-same old arguments.
Maybe Accord sales are slipping some now that the redesigned '08 is only a few months from introduction. I do see a lot of the new Impalas around here (central VA), and most of these are likely retail because our airport is small.
So there are no numbers available on fleet vs. retail on the Impala, or is that just that rental fleet vs. all other fleet numbers aren't broken out?
I think m1 has pretty much summarized the plight of the Sonata -- an 80% car, for not much less than the superior competition. The prior generation was a lot cheaper even in V6 form, so it sold well. This one seems to be tanking seriously, and I think Hyundai's overall sales momentum has stalled.
As noted many posts back, my wife and I rented a G6 V6 sedan back in March, and it was a decent car with good power from the 3.5, but we prefer our Camrys. Whoever mentioned the big butt was right, but it did make for a nice-sized trunk. The biggest turnoffs for us were the super-low passenger seat and the high beltline.
Andre, you're good with the details that are fading from my memory -- like the reskin GM gave its large cars in 1980. I do recall the easy way to tell them apart was the slope of the beltline near the A-pillar: the older cars had a more gradual upslope toward the pillar.
And to those of you commenting about the styling of those mid 60s Pontiacs, I have to agree -- absolutely beautiful cars! Same for the Rivieras and Toronados, at least up to '67. And other Buicks and Oldsmobiles of the era were by no means considered stodgy at the time -- they shared a lot of Bill Mitchell's magic.
Toyota’s total manufacturing hours per vehicle, while leading the way among the participating companies at 29.93 HPV, was not as strong as its 2005 performance of 29.40. Honda was second at 31.63 HPV.
Among vehicle assembly plants, GM’s Oshawa #2 plant, which assembles the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and Buick Allure, set the individual plant benchmark for labor productivity with a measure of 15.68 hours per vehicle, followed closely by its adjoining Oshawa #1 plant that produces the Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo, Oshawa #1 posted a 16.34 HPV performance. “GM Oshawa historically has had one of the best work forces of any assembly plant in the industry and the data proves that,” Harbour said. “The total site builds 20% of GM’s North American volume and does it well.”
Congratulations to GM. We call some people GM-bashers on this board, but I know I'm here because I want GM to be successful. Some of us just criticize because we want GM to do more. Sort of like free market research for any GM management who might be reading. :shades: You should read comments I've seen on another auto site if you think this board is negative toward GM and the American makes!
It does appear that GM's management gets it, that they are clearly doing the most of the three American nameplates, and are best positioned with the most competitive offerings of the domestic makes.
If they can keep up the good product then they are on the right path to improving reputation and sales position.
All right, back to our originally scheduled show: "GM is on the Offensive"!
Easy to see how faster is better for the bottom line, as labor time halves. How does this translate into best work force -- nice of them to acknowledge their workers, as many who worked for someone that never did that can relate to, but they can not physically be moving twice as fast? Looks like better management of procedures, as in fewer wasted steps, fewer parts or the way they go together, better arrangement of plant layout, more automation, fewer quality checks. What am I missing here in achieving half the assembly time? Are the workers better trained, higher motivated, and more skilled than those working at the competitors plants? If so, then perhaps they are the BEST workers in the biz! Whatever they are doing, sounds great if it achieves less man hours, with best results. Quality, at speed, sounds great as a formula. One of those advantages of Japans modern plants was efficiency, before upgrades by their competition. And now they say GM tops them all - interesting. Yet another step forward along the comeback trail. Loren
Probably just a newer plant. I saw a documentary years before about a ford plant that built the model T and was then building SUVs. The plant was closed shortly after the film, but frankly should have been closed in the 1960ies at the latest. The plant was a two level plant where assembly started on the 2nd floor and the car was carried to the 1st floor by elevator. Can you imagine a whole plant’s productive ability limited by how fast an elevator could carry cars two cars between floors! Now there were some great reasons to build such a plant when it was first built but show how I think whatever reasons there were to make a two level plant were long since gone. All most all modern manufacturing plants are single floor or perhaps if there is a 2nd level it isn’t used like that.
If gm had any plants like this it would explain the results.
- The Impala passed the Civic and getting very close to the Accord. However, the Cobalt is down 14.8%
- Ford Fusion is on top 10 at last.
-Honda sales with Civic and Accord combined are flat.
- The real winner is Toyota. Not only sales are up for both Camry and Corolla, but the Prius is on the list for the first time, having doubled its sales against last year. What's more, The Camry sold over 50,000 units in May alone. And if this keeps going, Toyota will be able to sell half million Camrys a year.
Now there were some great reasons to build such a plant when it was first built but show how I think whatever reasons there were to make a two level plant were long since gone. All most all modern manufacturing plants are single floor or perhaps if there is a 2nd level it isn’t used like that.
The two best plants in NA (Osahawa 1 and 2) are two floor plants and the paint shop is in a separate building. Having a 2nd floor means nothing to productivity.
I just wanted to follow up on the one floor vs two floor vs multiple floor plant comment.
the reason new plants are one floor is primarily because the new plants (primarily non domestic) are being built in rural areas where both the land and labor is cheap. land is cheap because it used to be a corn field. The labor is cheap because they are located in areas where the regional average income is relatively low. The folks are very happy to be making a wonderful wage. they may not get all the benis. but they are working their buts off because they know they could not do better elsewhere.
Many of the old plants were built near towns and property was a bit more expensive. I worked at the Tarrytown plant and I think there were 4 or more floors. It was an old plant.
GM Oshawa 1........15.68 GM Oshawa 2........16.34 Ford Kansas........17.83 GM CAMI............17.85 GM Fairfax.........17.89 Honda Ontario......18.82 Toyota/GM Nummi....19.00 Ford Chicago.......19.06 GM Lordstown.......19.17 Toyota Georgetown..19.77
You have to watch how they figure the labor hours/vehicle. Not sure how Harbour takes it into account but I could set up a plant so that 10 people could "build" a car. I have it all subcontracted eleswhere and then it comes in my "plant" and I put on the wheels/tires and finish up the paperwork.
If GM has as good as productive plants as Toyota and sells more than Toyota and has the same labor cost then why is GM losing $1400/vehicle while Toyota is making $1200/vehicle?
Ford lost $5200/vehicle last year and it is not going to get a lot better soon. Their buyouts will make a big difference to their botom line but thier product is not improving as fast as GM's.
Yes, I would think it would be that while GM is more than competitive in labor hours per vehicle that their labor hours cost more than the American factories of the Japanese companies.
That will have to change or the domestics will offload more production to Mexico which is not the answer we desire.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Let's put this in context. Both your post and 62's before that painted a different picture in my mind compared to when you look at the entire story. YMMV.
I don't normally quote from others at length, but in this case I believe it's necessary for clarification. This is from Michelle Krebs' article right here on Edmunds:
The North American auto industry received its first important grade on its 2006 report card today when Harbour Consulting revealed the outcome of its annual manufacturing productivity study.
Top scorers among the six major automakers evaluated (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda) are:
Toyota - first in total manufacturing productivity, which includes final car assembly as well as also stamping, engine and transmission production.
Honda - first in vehicle assembly productivity.
General Motors – first to win three of the four plant awards. No. 1 were GM Oshawa #2 for vehicle assembly; GM Spring Hill, engine assembly; GM Toledo, transmission production. Honda Marysville stamping took the fourth plant award.
The productivity gap among the six manufacturers was the closest in the nearly two-decade history of the study. That gap is so close, Harbour said, “There’s no telling who will be on top next year.”
(Story continues if you follow the link above.)
Conclusions: Toyota still won overall (corporate level in North America), albeit by a small margin over Nissan.
Honda won overall for vehicle final assembly.
GM won 3 of 4 awards at the individual plant level. Honda won the 4th.
In any case, the story is generally positive for all six of the biggest manufacturers here.
The question I ask is why did Toyota slide from their 2005 high. Is that a sign of being lax or what? The others seem to be getting better while Toyota is losing that edge.
Perhaps they want to double check the quality as it rolls down the production line. By 2006 news was out about cover-ups on quality issues and such. Just a thought.
Now back to the old, what does it do for me, line of thought on quickly assembled cars. Well, cost comes to mind. The car should cost less. Then there is the old, haste makes waste, which comes to mind. Considering how much goes into a car today, they are relatively inexpensive. Ever think of say those $20K Oldsmobile Regency 98 autos which sold in 1986, when compared to the modern day car? Not only in real dollars are today's cars a bargain, you are adding anti-lock brakes, air bags, stability control, larger alloy wheels, more HP, better gas mileage, better handling, longer warranties, and the list goes on and on. Actually, you could buy a four cylinder, with more HP, for less money than an Olds back in '86. A base PT, is probably priced the same these days as a 1980 car. Loren
GM outsold Toyota by over 100,000 vehicles in May. Toyota has a long ways to go to be number one in the USA. TM 269k vehicles, GM 371K vehicles. Ford is in third place the only automaker to have an off month.
Toyota is not just a brand. It is the same as GM the parent company. I believe your figures include the Scion brand. We can come up with all kinds of figures to make the other company look good or bad. Chevy still sells more trucks than Toyota. Toyota is NOT number one in the US. GM is still number ONE. Toyota so far has only one quarter of a years sales world wide that it is number one. We shall see what happens when the whole year is tallied.
GM's median transaction price is too low. Too many rental-fleet G6s and not enough full-ticket Acadias. I read somewhere last year that GM would have made about a billion dollars last year if their median was as high as Toyota's.
Toyota is not just a brand. It is the same as GM the parent company. I believe your figures include the Scion brand. We can come up with all kinds of figures to make the other company look good or bad. Chevy still sells more trucks than Toyota
First of all, please don't try to make it sound they are MY figures. Besides the sales figures of the automakers, we all know there are figures for brands too. We all know that Ford had been the best selling brand for so many years until 2004 or 2005. I believe last year Chevy took the title as #1 selling brand. Chevy still holds that title, but Toyota overtook Chevy in May. Lexus has also been the best selling luxury brand for the last 6 or 7 years. Get it now?
bumby. Thanks for the figures. How about May Figures?
Also, Toyota does not break Scions as its own brand when it comes to sales. In fact, there is no such brand as Scion when you register the car. In the registration, it is called Toyota Scion xB.
You took the trouble and listed those numbers, but you forgot to tell readers here that you seperated Scion YOURSELF.
I am simply saying that if Toyota overtakes Chevy this year, you will hear it by media everywhere. And whether we like it or not, the media will NOT seperate scion.
Just on the Ford (brand, not company) vs. Chevy race, Chevy beat Ford every calendar year from about 1935 or so up to 1986, with the exceptions of 1957, 1959, and 1970.
In 1957, Ford was all new, but Chevy was "just" a facelift. Of course, the '57 Chevy got the last laugh as one of the top classic cars of all time.
In 1959, Chevy went weird with those bat fins, and Ford was just plain better looking, even though it still was a redo of the '57 body.
In 1970, there was a prolonged strike by the UAW against GM.
Ford led from 1987-2004. Chevy pulled ahead in 2005, but Ford leapfrogged Chevy in 2006.
Actually the bottom line is the net-net profit. Recall the wonder years of .dot com stocks. They touted growth, and more growth, with profits only around the corner. Well they rounded the corner, and hit the wall.
The main thing is to rebuild GM, hold on for the next few years, and basically keep on the course for a steady income, while reducing debt. If Toyota get so fixed on being number one that they over extend the product lines and reliability starts to erode, let that be their problem. A concentrated effort at reducing the cost of the labor force, building cars which are truly new, as in looking towards GM being in the right place to provide cars which are needed, and desirable, while being reliable, is important. Where Toyota is, or should be, is not the major concern of GM, unless it is trying to exceed placing the proper products in the market place ahead of big T. How many units Toyota sells is not as important a figure to watch as is how many units are seen as being right placed in time to match current buyers needs.
Toyota may implode if it tries too hard to add so many new models of cars and trucks, and drops the ball on reliability. It is sort of like Toyota's game to lose. Loren
Comments
I would also guess he is assuming, in this case rightly, that most folks don't pay attention to cars the way folks in here do.
Weight no, but everything else yes. It should be readily apparent that a 14" wheel will be lighter than a 19" wheel made of the same material, and there is no reason low-profile tires cannot be used on smaller rims. Rotor size is the only legitimate reason for using larger rims, and there are ways to address that concern as well.
I did not know the Impreza had auto climate control, never seen that before. I highly doubt those cars are higly rated because of auto climate control.
mazda 3 sales were down last month.
Loren
Your brother may be driving the base 3i, in which nav wasn't available. It was available in the 3s trim.
If you put light alloy wheels, say in size 16", they would improve the car, like the Cobalt. 18" or larger are for show and not go. And for braking, I doubt that is an issue except for race cars. If you are overheating your brakes, just get off of them. Stopping power? Well if the smaller brakes are not working, perhaps the brakes are crappy, the car weight in too piggish, or your foot is too light. Porsche used 15" wheels for years, did they not? For 18" wheels, I would say a larger car, with lots of HP, it may make at least some sense. Note the price difference come tire replacement time, and you may long for a 15-16 or even a 17" wheel again. Pity those replacing wagon wheels, like those 22" tires = ouch! I mean to say ouch for your pocket book, and ouch for the tire changer's back. :sick:
As for the Vette, the downsizing is well accepted I think, so why not go back to 17" or 18" front and back? Have two sizes for the track car or for those pretending to be pros. Oh hell, it doesn't matter, just upgrade to 22" front and 24" rear and be done with it. Head'em up - move'm out !
Loren
You and others believe this but I dont know that its true. Imports are gaining favor all over and the NE part of the US is just as populous and influential as the west coast. With some exceptions (DC area for example) domestics do OK here as far as I can tell. Trust me, you will see plenty of domestics if you drive through PA, NJ, MD, NY, etc. I would say the higher income the area, the more imports you will see, but amongt working class and middle class people domestics are pretty common in this part of the US.
People are quick to say that on the west coats domestics are in trouble (they are) but the flip side is if you remove the west coast from the automotive market, the domestics wouldnt look nearly as bad as they do in terms of marketshare numbers.
The rest of my point still stands. The 3 is a small time player in this segment with or without production limitations. The corolla just racked up record sales and that again proves people want great mileage, resale value and low pricing more than "premium" features in a compact. Unlike Europe, when people in the US think small they think the price tag should be small as well. The corolla is doing just fine and I believe it tops out at $21k or so and offers NOTHING in the way of upscale features,
Retail Sales of Full-Size Pickups Up 14 Percent, Led by the New Silverado and Sierra
GMC Acadia, Saturn OUTLOOK and Buick Enclave Achieve Industry Mid-Crossover Segment Leadership with a 415 Percent Retail Sales Increase
Chevrolet Impala, Pontiac G6 and Saturn AURA Drive 31 Percent Retail Sales Increase For Mid-Car Segment
Saturn Leads Divisions with a 69 Percent Sales Increase
GM now has a 23% share of mid crossover market.
On an unadjusted basis, retail sales were up 12.8 percent compared with a year ago.
Chevrolet was again the sales leader in the industry (up 5 percent).
Chevrolet Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, HHR, Silverado, Suburban, and Avalanche; Pontiac G6 and Solstice; Saturn SKY and VUE; Saab 9-3, GMC Sierra and Yukon XL; Buick Lucerne; Cadillac SRX, Escalade ESV and Escalade EXT; and HUMMER H3 all had May retail sales increases compared with a year ago.
GM Certified Used Vehicles, the industry's top-selling manufacturer-certified used brand, posted 40,306 sales, up nearly 5 percent from last May. Year-to-date sales for GM Certified Used Vehicles are 199,715 units, up 4 percent from the same period in 2006.
In May, GM North America produced 401,000 vehicles (139,000 cars and 262,000 trucks). This is down 25,000 units or 6 percent compared to May 2006 when the region produced 425,000 vehicles
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=2&docid=36708
Total industry is expected to be down. Of course Edmunds was off again. It is turning into a 2 company fight.
http://www.pr-inside.com/toyota-gm-lift-u-s-may-auto-r141556.htm
I dont know why edmunds bothers to try and predict sales in advance every month, as you said they are often wrong. Its kind of pointless to try and guess montly stats a week before they are published.
GM and Toyota are going strong right now. Nissan, Ford, Honda, etc. all lost share as far as I can tell.
Impala did outsell Accord last month by several thousand units, that is significant in my book.
It is not pointless. They are quoted every month everywhere and they are getting huge name recognition. That is the name of the game in this internet world. Get people to your site.
As of 2005, The gross state product (GSP) is about $1.62 trillion, the largest in the country. California is responsible for 13% of the United States gross domestic product (GDP). As of 2005, California's GDP is larger than all but seven countries in the world (and all but eight countries by Purchasing Power Parity).
So it is pretty important to win the game here. Once the new cars, such as the Impala, New Malibu, Astra, Camaro, and Holdens are selling in California, and the rest of the West, we will have the answer as to how successful the new GM is. Cars like the Chrysler 300 were very much a hit here on the Left Coast. Looks like the Impala and Holdens as Pontiac could catch on. Just don't try to pass them off as a GTO with a large side sticker. Camaro was, and should be in the future a big hit upon introduction. It was all the rage in '67. The Astra I am pretty sure will sell well here. The Malibu, if not overpriced, should sell on value. Could pull sales from the Big Two of Japan. Still think it will pull sales from other GM makes though. IMHO, Saturn needs to do some ads with Aura and its little brother Astra together.
Now Impala outselling Accord seems hard to believe. Could not possibly be that many new retail sales to individuals. Some secrete extra discount allowances? Something sounds fishy. It is not advertised, as far as this area, they are not giving as much cash to customers, yet magically it is outselling Accord. Not arguing the merits of one car over the other, but Accords alway sell, and they are selling with discounts now, and plenty of advertising. The Impala is going to sell more than a couple years ago with a freshen up look, but in large numbers? What be the catalyst? Like to see the break-down of the books on that one.
Make or break years for GM vs. the world look to be but a year or two away, as we find out the acceptance of the new stuff from GM. So far the current SUV line of new cars hit the mark = score one. So this year and the following two years, we get the rest of the picture. Looks more promising than the prospect for Ford, but they may have a rabbit in the hat -- gosh they better have one. Ford trucks still sell, and they have Volvo and Mazda, if nothing else for use poorer to middle class to buy. The Ford car line looks to be in a holding patten. Circle in a holding pattern long enough however and you run out of gas and crash to the earth. Mustang modernization of the skin could help. 2008 may show us something. Mercury and Lincoln may be on life support now, which is sad. Those Mark car were so cool. Lincoln formal cars had so much class.
Loren
Impala was up about 44% in May. Retail sales were up 13% for all of GM. If you look at the numbers Grand Prix sales were way up and I bet most of that was rental fleet. Really doubt a lot of the Impala increase was due to rental fleet though I have no data so I will not type random thoughts on it.
Ford is unfortunately going down.
Ballew said GM's new products, which tout better fuel economy, helped lift the company's performance in May. The company's redesigned pickup trucks and new crossover vehicles showed notable momentum. Through five months, the company's retail sales have increased, but a cut to fleet sales has forced the company to take further market-share losses.
Despite the recent market-share losses, Ballew expects GM's share to be up about 1 percentage point in May compared with the same period in 2005 thanks to its big increase in retail sales. GM's inventory sits just below 1 million vehicles and Ballew declined to comment on whether the company will stockpile additional vehicles to prepare for a labor stoppage that could happen in relation to United Auto Worker contract negotiations slated to conclude in September.
GM continues to expect to sell 3 million retail vehicles in the U.S., but overall sales will likely fall as it pulls back from sales to rental car firms, which typically return lower margins.
Ballew said GM spent about $2,900 per vehicle on incentives, raising overall incentives during the month. The increase included lifting pickup truck discounts and rebates by hundreds of dollars.
Anybody check out the incentives on the new Tundra? $3500 possible. Silverado is at $1000. (per Automotive News) Tundra is also offering 0% interest with GM's minium at 4.9%. (you can get $2000 off the classic but probably not many left)
Maybe Accord sales are slipping some now that the redesigned '08 is only a few months from introduction. I do see a lot of the new Impalas around here (central VA), and most of these are likely retail because our airport is small.
So there are no numbers available on fleet vs. retail on the Impala, or is that just that rental fleet vs. all other fleet numbers aren't broken out?
I think m1 has pretty much summarized the plight of the Sonata -- an 80% car, for not much less than the superior competition. The prior generation was a lot cheaper even in V6 form, so it sold well. This one seems to be tanking seriously, and I think Hyundai's overall sales momentum has stalled.
As noted many posts back, my wife and I rented a G6 V6 sedan back in March, and it was a decent car with good power from the 3.5, but we prefer our Camrys. Whoever mentioned the big butt was right, but it did make for a nice-sized trunk. The biggest turnoffs for us were the super-low passenger seat and the high beltline.
Andre, you're good with the details that are fading from my memory -- like the reskin GM gave its large cars in 1980. I do recall the easy way to tell them apart was the slope of the beltline near the A-pillar: the older cars had a more gradual upslope toward the pillar.
And to those of you commenting about the styling of those mid 60s Pontiacs, I have to agree -- absolutely beautiful cars! Same for the Rivieras and Toronados, at least up to '67. And other Buicks and Oldsmobiles of the era were by no means considered stodgy at the time -- they shared a lot of Bill Mitchell's magic.
Toyota’s total manufacturing hours per vehicle, while leading the way among the participating companies at 29.93 HPV, was not as strong as its 2005 performance of 29.40. Honda was second at 31.63 HPV.
Among vehicle assembly plants, GM’s Oshawa #2 plant, which assembles the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and Buick Allure, set the individual plant benchmark for labor productivity with a measure of 15.68 hours per vehicle, followed closely by its adjoining Oshawa #1 plant that produces the Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo, Oshawa #1 posted a 16.34 HPV performance. “GM Oshawa historically has had one of the best work forces of any assembly plant in the industry and the data proves that,” Harbour said. “The total site builds 20% of GM’s North American volume and does it well.”
It does appear that GM's management gets it, that they are clearly doing the most of the three American nameplates, and are best positioned with the most competitive offerings of the domestic makes.
If they can keep up the good product then they are on the right path to improving reputation and sales position.
All right, back to our originally scheduled show: "GM is on the Offensive"!
How does this translate into best work force -- nice of them to acknowledge their workers, as many who worked for someone that never did that can relate to, but they can not physically be moving twice as fast? Looks like better management of procedures, as in fewer wasted steps, fewer parts or the way they go together, better arrangement of plant layout, more automation, fewer quality checks. What am I missing here in achieving half the assembly time?
Are the workers better trained, higher motivated, and more skilled than those working at the competitors plants? If so, then perhaps they are the BEST workers in the biz! Whatever they are doing, sounds great if it achieves less man hours, with best results. Quality, at speed, sounds great as a formula. One of those advantages of Japans modern plants was efficiency, before upgrades by their competition. And now they say GM tops them all - interesting. Yet another step forward along the comeback trail.
Loren
If gm had any plants like this it would explain the results.
1- Toyota Camry: ------ 193,900 +9.5%
2- Toyota Corolla: ---- 165,722 +3.6%
3- Honda Accord: ------ 153,431 +5.4%
4- Chevy Impala:------- 144,541 +26.8
5- Honda Civic:-------- 137,288 -1.0%
6- Nissan Altima: ----- 114,318 +11.2%
7- Chevy Cobalt: ------ 79,257 -14.8%
8- Ford Focus: -------- 77,732 -3.5%
9- Toyota Prius: ------ 76,747 +99.6%
10- Ford Fusion: ------ 66,260 +15.4%
- The Impala passed the Civic and getting very close to the Accord. However, the Cobalt is down 14.8%
- Ford Fusion is on top 10 at last.
-Honda sales with Civic and Accord combined are flat.
- The real winner is Toyota. Not only sales are up for both Camry and Corolla, but the Prius is on the list for the first time, having doubled its sales against last year. What's more, The Camry sold over 50,000 units in May alone. And if this keeps going, Toyota will be able to sell half million Camrys a year.
-
The two best plants in NA (Osahawa 1 and 2) are two floor plants and the paint shop is in a separate building. Having a 2nd floor means nothing to productivity.
the reason new plants are one floor is primarily because the new plants (primarily non domestic) are being built in rural areas where both the land and labor is cheap. land is cheap because it used to be a corn field. The labor is cheap because they are located in areas where the regional average income is relatively low. The folks are very happy to be making a wonderful wage. they may not get all the benis. but they are working their buts off because they know they could not do better elsewhere.
Many of the old plants were built near towns and property was a bit more expensive. I worked at the Tarrytown plant and I think there were 4 or more floors. It was an old plant.
GM Oshawa 2........16.34
Ford Kansas........17.83
GM CAMI............17.85
GM Fairfax.........17.89
Honda Ontario......18.82
Toyota/GM Nummi....19.00
Ford Chicago.......19.06
GM Lordstown.......19.17
Toyota Georgetown..19.77
You have to watch how they figure the labor hours/vehicle. Not sure how Harbour takes it into account but I could set up a plant so that 10 people could "build" a car. I have it all subcontracted eleswhere and then it comes in my "plant" and I put on the wheels/tires and finish up the paperwork.
Ford lost $5200/vehicle last year and it is not going to get a lot better soon. Their buyouts will make a big difference to their botom line but thier product is not improving as fast as GM's.
That will have to change or the domestics will offload more production to Mexico which is not the answer we desire.
Likely it's a lot of factors, and not having universal healthcare plus current executive pay structure combined to cause losses per vehicle sold.
I don't normally quote from others at length, but in this case I believe it's necessary for clarification. This is from Michelle Krebs' article right here on Edmunds:
The North American auto industry received its first important grade on its 2006 report card today when Harbour Consulting revealed the outcome of its annual manufacturing productivity study.
Top scorers among the six major automakers evaluated (General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda) are:
Toyota - first in total manufacturing productivity, which includes final car assembly as well as also stamping, engine and transmission production.
Honda - first in vehicle assembly productivity.
General Motors – first to win three of the four plant awards. No. 1 were GM Oshawa #2 for vehicle assembly; GM Spring Hill, engine assembly; GM Toledo, transmission production. Honda Marysville stamping took the fourth plant award.
The productivity gap among the six manufacturers was the closest in the nearly two-decade history of the study. That gap is so close, Harbour said, “There’s no telling who will be on top next year.”
(Story continues if you follow the link above.)
Conclusions:
Toyota still won overall (corporate level in North America), albeit by a small margin over Nissan.
Honda won overall for vehicle final assembly.
GM won 3 of 4 awards at the individual plant level. Honda won the 4th.
In any case, the story is generally positive for all six of the biggest manufacturers here.
Now back to the old, what does it do for me, line of thought on quickly assembled cars. Well, cost comes to mind. The car should cost less. Then there is the old, haste makes waste, which comes to mind. Considering how much goes into a car today, they are relatively inexpensive. Ever think of say those $20K Oldsmobile Regency 98 autos which sold in 1986, when compared to the modern day car? Not only in real dollars are today's cars a bargain, you are adding anti-lock brakes, air bags, stability control, larger alloy wheels, more HP, better gas mileage, better handling, longer warranties, and the list goes on and on. Actually, you could buy a four cylinder, with more HP, for less money than an Olds back in '86. A base PT, is probably priced the same these days as a 1980 car.
Loren
May sales:
Toyota: 237,176
Chevy: 220,870
Ford: 212,572
GMC YTD: 200,745
Pontiac YTD: 141,742
Saturn YTD: 103,935
Cadillac YTD: 81,045
Buick YTD: 73,664
Hummer YTD: 22,015
Saab YTD: 12,642
Isuzu YTD: 5,353
Toyota YTD: 905,534
Lexus YTD: 131,333
Scion YTD: 48,468
First of all, please don't try to make it sound they are MY figures. Besides the sales figures of the automakers, we all know there are figures for brands too. We all know that Ford had been the best selling brand for so many years until 2004 or 2005. I believe last year Chevy took the title as #1 selling brand. Chevy still holds that title, but Toyota overtook Chevy in May. Lexus has also been the best selling luxury brand for the last 6 or 7 years. Get it now?
Also, Toyota does not break Scions as its own brand when it comes to sales. In fact, there is no such brand as Scion when you register the car. In the registration, it is called Toyota Scion xB.
You took the trouble and listed those numbers, but you forgot to tell readers here that you seperated Scion YOURSELF.
I am simply saying that if Toyota overtakes Chevy this year, you will hear it by media everywhere. And whether we like it or not, the media will NOT seperate scion.
In 1957, Ford was all new, but Chevy was "just" a facelift. Of course, the '57 Chevy got the last laugh as one of the top classic cars of all time.
In 1959, Chevy went weird with those bat fins, and Ford was just plain better looking, even though it still was a redo of the '57 body.
In 1970, there was a prolonged strike by the UAW against GM.
Ford led from 1987-2004. Chevy pulled ahead in 2005, but Ford leapfrogged Chevy in 2006.
Something else I recall is that Ford (brand) or Chevy cars (excluding trucks) were #1 each year from 1910-2002. But Toyota cars were #1 in 2003.
Guess who was #1 in 1909 -- Buick!
The main thing is to rebuild GM, hold on for the next few years, and basically keep on the course for a steady income, while reducing debt. If Toyota get so fixed on being number one that they over extend the product lines and reliability starts to erode, let that be their problem. A concentrated effort at reducing the cost of the labor force, building cars which are truly new, as in looking towards GM being in the right place to provide cars which are needed, and desirable, while being reliable, is important. Where Toyota is, or should be, is not the major concern of GM, unless it is trying to exceed placing the proper products in the market place ahead of big T. How many units Toyota sells is not as important a figure to watch as is how many units are seen as being right placed in time to match current buyers needs.
Toyota may implode if it tries too hard to add so many new models of cars and trucks, and drops the ball on reliability. It is sort of like Toyota's game to lose.
Loren
Cadillac
Your figures just prove what I said on the Cadillac board. GM is far too "big" for its "britches". They have tons more overhead than Toyota.
Chevrolet: 220,870
GMC: 48,336
Pontiac: 36,325
Saturn: 26,905
Cadillac: 17,380
Buick: 17,087
Hummer: 4,636
Saab: 2,872
Isuzu: 1,271
GM Car: 142,610
GM Truck: 220,077
Toyota: 225,606
Lexus: 31,847
Scion: 11,570
TLS Car: 168,270
TLS Truck: 100,753