I get 30 MPG and 24 MPG in mixed driving. The car can seat up to five, with four happy people within.
As for family people movers, wasn't there something called the mini-van. Those don't get good gas mileage??? If so, then the question is why not? What did people do before the SUV and Trucks? They certainly did travel in the 1900's. :shades: I do recall the station wagon and the trailers. Oh no, not trailers! Guess people move the whole house when taking a drive these days. Most of the SUVs and trucks I see how zip - nada in the back of them. At the shopping mall, I see a couple of bags of clothes or something in there, but I could fit those in the old Miata, I once owned. :shades: Now, when pressed into real service, I do agree, those SUVs hold a lot of stuff. So why not make them with some gas mileage figures which can match cars, as in require those to be hybrid and leave the fun and more enjoyable cars alone?
Ya know, curb feelers are quite functional. Most accessorized Buicks I have seen over the years have had the optional box of kleenex as seen through the back window.
Actually, a black Lucy, with loads of chrome may look kinda nicely blinged.
Big SUVs and overpowered cars are prevalent industry wide, these are not "GM only" problems as you are proposing.
Quite right. They are also Ford and Chrysler's problem, since the sales volume of the not-so-big 3 runs something like 70% trucks and SUVs, while their Asian competitors are more like 30% or less.
Toyota is not for the radical CAFE increases at all.
Gee, my comment wasn't even written at midnight either, so I don't have an excuse, except to point out that "Japanese car makers" includes "green" Honda. Honda isn't a member of the Auto Alliance fwiw (Mitsu and Mazda are).
General Motors Corp. (GM) sales analysis chief Paul Ballew said Thursday the company is implementing a "significant decline" in fleet sales to rental car companies, noting that the auto maker plans to cut rental-car sales by 20,000 vehicles during June.
In a conference with the media, Ballew said the company is undertaking one of its major monthly fleet-sales cuts in June, and that could affect the auto maker's total sales volume for the month. He did not give a specific forecast for GM's June sales performance, which will be reported July 3.
GM's U.S. sales fell 3.4% through the first five months of the year, all because of the cuts in rental-car sales, which are generally considered to be less profitable than sales on the retail level. Retail sales at dealerships were up 2% through May. GM is trying to boost sales to certain fleet customers, such as commercial clients who use medium-duty trucks, Ballew said.
GM cut sales to rental-car companies by 79,301, or 27%, in the first five months of the year as it aims to improve the profitability of its North American operations, which continue to lose money due to high costs, production cuts and other factors.
By cutting sales to rental fleets, LaNeve said the auto maker has been able to boost the resale value of its cars on the market and boost the profitability of the business it still does with rental-car firms.
"That business has become much more profitable for us," LaNeve said.
During the same conference, GM Sales and Marketing Chief Mark LaNeve said the auto maker will launch a Fourth of July sale later in June. The sale likely will be a strategic effort to discount vehicles selectively on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis rather than a big blowout clearance sale.
GM has been steadily decreasing its reliance on incentives, LaNeve said, indicating that buyers are now flocking to the company's brands in order to take advantage of product features and the company's 100,000-mile warranty, rather than bargain-basement discounts and rebates.
LaNeve said GM, which has steadily lost market share in recent years, is ready to start focusing on a plan to accelerate growth. The auto maker is pumping considerable investment into key brands - such as Buick and Saturn - while also revamping its advertising strategy in order to start growing again, especially once the U.S. market picks up again in 2008 and 2009, as GM expects it will.
GM plans to ramp up its marketing drive surrounding the company's improving fuel-economy efforts as it tries to shatter market perceptions of the auto maker as being overly dependent on gas guzzlers. LaNeve said that "we need to do more" in terms of advertising spending and other means to push its fuel-economy message.
"Our story is much, much better than people give us credit for," he said.
The executive pointed out that GM offers 24 models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or more, and it is essentially the fuel-economy leader in trucks and SUVs. Since the late 1970s, GM has improved its passenger-car fleet fuel economy by 133% and its light-truck fleet fuel economy by 75%.
Still, LaNeve said, what he describes as the misperception of GM's fuel-economy efforts is one of the most frustrating parts of his job. He said the company's heavy concentration of trucks in its vehicle lineup may continue to be playing a negative role, even as the auto maker has worked to increase fuel economy in that segment.
"Our strength in trucks works against us in getting our fuel-economy message out," he said.
GM shares recently rose 1%, or 37 cents, to $35.70 on volume of 13.8 million compared with average daily volume of 11.7 million. -By John D. Stoll, Dow Jones Newswires; 313-510-5002; john.stoll@dowjones.com
Pontiac is the perfect rental car. It's probably the worst car GM makes overall, the interiors are cheap, the motors are rough, the designs are ugly. I have owned two Bonnevilles in my past, and both of them were miserable cars. Every Pontiac I have rented in the past has been just horrible. I think Pontiac should be sold to rental fleets ONLY. YMMV. :mad:
Ok, so Toyota either is or isn't in the middle of this CAFE increase
Toyota does not want the significant increase because it will be near impossible to meet. It will require large increases in cost / price and therefore volume will drop. They had approved the Levin compromise bill while the domestics took a few more days to see the writing on the wall and verbally get behind it.
If you want to make money in the future buy aluminum and magnesium. Look for lots more aluminum body parts and frame parts. First thing that will happen is all the spare wheels will go aluminum or mag. This is always the first item to change when a vehicle is near its mass limit.
First thing that will happen is all the spare wheels will go aluminum or mag.
A can of Fix-a-Flat is a lot lighter than even a magnesium wheel.
There is a lot of wasted poundage in vehicles these days that could be excised through better design (just as it was in the '70s), but up to now there hasn't been any motivation to spend the money on that.
A can of Fix-a-Flat is a lot lighter than even a magnesium wheel
Even lighter is a button to push that gets a service to come fix it. Many people do it that way now anyway.
Looks like they are going to pass the bill that puts both cars and trucks under one mpg regulatioin. Any full line company (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota) will soon have to make a decision whether to continue building the trucks in volume. My guess is that Chrysler will decide to drop their large trucks/SUV's in 5 years. Toyota will continue to build the Tundra and other large SUV's but keep the volume of them low relative to their car side. That means that GM/Ford will greatly increase the price of their Pick up trucks and that cost will be just passed on to the contractors customers. This cost will be what it takes to get the corporate numbers up.
Sad day for GM and Ford. Great day for Honda or any other company that does not rely on trucks! DC, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Kia
"Pontiac is the perfect rental car. It's probably the worst car GM makes overall, the interiors are cheap, the motors are rough, the designs are ugly. I have owned two Bonnevilles in my past, and both of them were miserable cars. Every Pontiac I have rented in the past has been just horrible. I think Pontiac should be sold to rental fleets ONLY. YMMV."
I have to laugh about your post Nvbanker but in all seriousness well My family has owned 5 Pontiacs and I agree the interiors have always been on the cheap side and yes Pontiacs exterior spanning the 1992-1999 model years were pretty awful with the cladding in all.
However I think the G6 is ok, I have sat in one and wasn;t that bad to sit in anyway.
GM's U.S. sales fell 3.4% through the first five months of the year, all because of the cuts in rental-car sales, which are generally considered to be less profitable than sales on the retail level. Retail sales at dealerships were up 2% through May. GM is trying to boost sales to certain fleet customers, such as commercial clients who use medium-duty trucks, Ballew said.
In my opinion GM still has some work to do in getting their retail sales up because a 2% sales gain in retail sales is basically a relatively flat number.
General Motors Corp. (GM) sales analysis chief Paul Ballew said Thursday the company is implementing a "significant decline" in fleet sales to rental car companies, noting that the auto maker plans to cut rental-car sales by 20,000 vehicles during June. In a conference with the media, Ballew said the company is undertaking one of its major monthly fleet-sales cuts in June, and that could affect the auto maker's total sales volume for the month. He did not give a specific forecast for GM's June sales performance, which will be reported July 3. GM cut sales to rental-car companies by 79,301, or 27%, in the first five months of the year as it aims to improve the profitability of its North American operations, which continue to lose money due to high costs, production cuts and other factors.
Wow, 27%(or 79,301 vehicles) GM cut its rental fleet that is a huge number of cars that they cut in not going to rental fleets. I wonder how long of a period of time GM will continue to cut rental fleet sales and what number percentage wise will GM rental fleet sales stabilize at once Gm stops cutting their sales to rental fleets.
"He said the company's heavy concentration of trucks in its vehicle lineup may continue to be playing a negative role, even as the auto maker has worked to increase fuel economy in that segment."
Well GM's SUV's still sell pretty well even with the high gas prices factored in in the US market but I do agree with LaNeve that GM's heavy conceration of trucks does play a negative role when it comes to the customers overall perception of GM's fuel economy.
The reason people like the Lucerne is with the V8 and upgraded suspension, it rides like an older LS400 or S420. Big, solid, and heavy. Yet not slow or sloshy in turns. And it's a LOT less money than a E class or Lexus - or even a DTS.
"In my opinion GM still has some work to do in getting their retail sales up because a 2% sales gain in retail sales is basically a relatively flat number."
Yes, but isn't the overall market actually DOWN in the same time period? So any carmaker gaining total sales in a market making less sales than usual has got to be doing better than the average bear...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You GM bashers are so quick to criticize that you are constantly making up stuff to talk about.
I've commended GM on the progress they've made to date. Why would a basher waste time here? I'd like to see a successful and vibrant American car company. Seems to me that criticism of flaws in product and strategy is a lot more constructive than fanboys who will commend any stupid decision a company makes.
"Quite right. They are also Ford and Chrysler's problem, since the sales volume of the not-so-big 3 runs something like 70% trucks and SUVs, while their Asian competitors are more like 30% or less. "
Got any numbers to back up those stats? Chrsyler is probably close to 70% trucks, but GM is significantly lower. GM has far more competent cars than Ford or Chrysler. They also have the newest and most fuel efficient trucks. They also have three hybrid GMT900 SUVs coming out. Havent heard about Toyota putting their system on any large trucks yet. I find it interesting that people dont have a problem with Toyota not applying its hybrid technology to its most thirsty vehicles.
"Seems to me that criticism of flaws in product and strategy is a lot more constructive than fanboys who will commend any stupid decision a company makes. "
dont know who you are talking about because you certainly arent describing the people here who happen to want GM to succeed. I think we are very grounded in reality and quite aware of GM's recent mistakes. Do you have any examples of myself (or others) commending every stupid decision GM has made? Just curious. I find that many people here think ANY criticism is constructive and that is part of the problem. Besides, the "GM fanboys" are not running GM so I dont understand why "truthtellers" like yourself feel so obligated to get us straight about how bad GM is.
Is every automaker subject to CAFE or just automakers with significant US operations? In other words, will MB, Audi and BMW have to meet this new standard?
"Quite right. They are also Ford and Chrysler's problem, since the sales volume of the not-so-big 3 runs something like 70% trucks and SUVs, while their Asian competitors are more like 30% or less. " (bumpy)
GM ran 57% trucks last year (2006) which includes all those crossovers and such. Chrysler ran 68% while Ford corp was 61%. Also remember that GM, while at 57% trucks had a huge protion of the full size truck/SUV segement with their new high mpg vehicles (relative to competition).
In 2005 it was 60%.
Nissan corp. ran 46% trucks, Toyota corp ran 43% trucks while Honda ran 44% trucks.
Is every automaker subject to CAFE or just automakers with significant US operations? In other words, will MB, Audi and BMW have to meet this new standard?
All OEM's will have to meet the new numbers except perhaps those tiny companies that do not even show up in the automotive news reports. Lotus may be one of them? Just not sure but the ones you mentioned will have to. This will really change things in the industry. Thowe that build the big trucks will have to meet the same standards as the ones who do not. So Honda, with small cars and trucks will not have to spend the big bucks to get the entire fleet up as GM and Ford will.
Again, we will see some companies figure out it will not be worth the money to improve the MPG on the large vehicles and just kill them off. Toyota may even kill it's large trucks just to save the investment/cost increase on the small cars to make up for the large ones.
But in the end I think the public will see what will happen and the regulations will be revised. Just creates havoc for the OEM's to keep revising their product plans.
Somehow I get the feeling that you do not have wife, 2.3 kids and all the stuff that goes with it. I happily get 1/2 your gas mileage to keep my family doing what they want to do.
Somehow decades ago, families with, omygosh, up to "3" kids managed very well with "one" vehicle in the family. They did things, such as Seeing the USA in their Chevrolet or other GM, Ford and Chrysler 4-door sedans. For those wanting a little more room, there were station wagons, but they were built on sedan chasis. Why even young families were able to cart their toddlers/baby to grandma/pa with cribs and other paraphanalia in back seat and/or trunk. Just think of the hardships that families back then endured without having suvs such as Suburbans, Tahoes, Expeditions, Excurisions (now defunct). This hardship was far greater then what our grandparents endured walking to school many miles in ice, snow and zero weather.
Why even young families were able to cart their toddlers/baby to grandma/pa with cribs and other paraphanalia in back seat and/or trunk. Just think of the hardships that families back then endured without having suvs such as Suburbans, Tahoes, Expeditions, Excurisions (now defunct). This hardship was far greater then what our grandparents endured walking to school many miles in ice, snow and zero weather.
Wow, lets all reminisce about those great times. I remember us going on vacation with 7 kids in the back of the 67 Pontiac station wagon. No one wore seatbelts, no child seats for each kid, kids were piled high on top of each other. Luggage piled on the kids and the roof. Great times and I really want to go back to that life. Heck with just one car we went w/o the after school programs and sports. I even remember laying on the "package" shelf in a sedan in the warm sun as my dad barreled upnorth at 70 mph.
No, today we have different expectations just as we had different expectations from our grandparents before us. Of course we should force everyone else to live as we expect them to. Now we just have to figure out which one of us makes the rules.
GM on Thursday said it's reducing Woods' role as pitchman for the 104-year-old Buick nameplate. Instead, Woods will pitch OnStar, its roadside assistance feature, GM marketing chief Mark LaNeve said.
Woods' contract with Buick will continue through 2010, and he'll still play a limited role in marketing the brand's vehicles. But GM wants Buick ads to focus more on the vehicles themselves, especially with the Enclave crossover – widely considered Buick's most promising new offering in years – just beginning to hit showrooms.
"We don't want a celebrity at the core of any brand. We want the message on Buick to be about Buick," LaNeve said at a news conference Thursday. "Tiger should be on the periphery. When we show him with a car, we're still going to show him with Buicks for the most part. We're just not going to position him as central to the Buick brand."
The extent of Woods' involvement with OnStar is unclear but GM reported he won't be the only celebrity helping to promote the service. In a new television spot, Woods is shown along with Kelly Ripa of "Regis and Kelly" fame and talk show host Jimmy Kimmel using OnStar to get themselves out of various predicaments.
I have a lot of confidence that all the major automotive manufacturers will be increasing mileage while keeping reasonable performance and room over the next 10 years- better CAFE legislation or not. They either have to do that or risk going bankrupt in the next fuel "crisis" (real or man made). And my family went to Honduras last year (2 adults, 3 grown children) rented a Hyundai Matrix (similar to the Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe sold in the U.S.) and it was amazingly roomy- you sit up high, decent room for luggage, performance adequate (not great, but the roads in Honduras are so bad, didn't make much difference). For many of us, that type of vehicle would be fine. But funny, neither the Toyota Matrix or Pontiac Vibe is a big seller in the U.S.
For May 2007, GM was 40% cars and 60% trucks, and was 39% and 61% for the year to date. Ford and Chrysler have been even more heavily slanted toward trucks, pushing the not-so-big 3 toward 70% as a group.
Edit: Ford- 34% cars and 66% trucks for May, 34% and 66% YTD. Chrysler- 30% cars and 70% trucks for May, 26% cars and 74% trucks YTD
I'll go dig up the numbers for the big Asian makes later if no one else beats me to it.
"But in the end I think the public will see what will happen and the regulations will be revised."
Gosh, I hope we DON'T just stick our heads back in the sand for another two decades. Oil isn't getting any cheaper, and the foreign regimes of dubious nature we prop up by exporting our currency for their oil aren't getting any less bold, or any more friendly.
All the CAFE debate is really pointing out to the domestics is just how much their legacy costs and unfavorable labor contracts are hurting them, because they make it much harder for Ford and GM to make profits on smaller cars, which will be crucial as fuel economy ramps up. The legacy costs and unfavorable labor contracts were already a known issue, the CAFE rules don't make that issue any more urgent than it already was (indeed, such a feat would be impossible).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
these regulations are trying to force automakers to offer things people are not really asking for. Yes people are paying more attention to economy these days, but the media is grossly exaggerating the "overwhelming" demand for small cars. Compare the sales of the Acadia to the Fit and Aveo for reference. People are still buying tons of SUVs and powerful luxury cars, its just that they are buying less body on frame SUVs. Getting 35mpg isnt going to be easy and there is no way it can be done with either a) sacrificing performance or b)increasing costs via more exotic materials that save weight. People in the US are going to have to get used to slower cars with less power, its what they do in Europe and other places with expensive gas. I love this idea pushed by domestic car bashers that the Big 3 secretly have the technology to do all of this on the cheap but they have been holding back to protect SUVS. even Toyota doesnt have easy answers for this. As 62 said, you really have to start phasing out truck lines altogether to meet this requirement. While SUVs are seen as largely optional we cant forget that this includes pickups as well and they are largely used for tasks and plenty of contractors, gov. agencies and self employed people need these trucks. The government totally ignores that and acts like pickups are large and heavy for no reason and serve as nothing but pleasure rides for the environmentally irresponsible. Making a 35mpg pickup isnt a simple proposition.
Not having seven kids would help this equation immensely. I guess everyone though, back when got into a cramped car though...
I recall a vacation where a Dad let a me and a friend sit in the back of an old Chevy '50 truck, as we went up to the Sierras. Ah life was good. No worries. Well some deaths and accidents along the way, but none for us, and thus I am sitting here typing this today. I recall the day coming back from summer camp with seven in a Ford Falcon, with all the gear, and it was pretty darn hot. Somehow we all had fun. Sang the song, Henry the 8th, by Herman's Hermits enough times that it is a wonder Mom and Dad did not leave us on the side of the road. All the kids and I made it on home safe and insane.
There was life before the SUV, so I assume there will be life without it. Of course there will always be a need for some sort of buss for those super sized families. That's what the world needs, a few more billion people. Loren
Does OnStar use a satellite to connect the conversation? I see they do not guarantee a connection, though from a legal stance, it makes sense not to get too confident. As we all know, the cell phones do not always work. I too like the Fix Flat for emergency flats. I could live without a spare tire.
What's more, Toyota is far and away (4 full points) the sales leader in the U.S. in retail sales.
GM is doing it right getting the rental sales under a quarter million this year. And they say other fleet sales are more profitable.
The question for GM is, why aren't more individual buyers who are spending their own money choosing GM vehicles? I am confident the Saturn resurgence will improve those numbers somewhat.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The question for GM is, why aren't more individual buyers who are spending their own money choosing GM vehicles?
The SUV boom has run its course, and car buyers expect a better car from the Asian brands. It will take time for GM's reputation as a car maker to improve and garner increased sales.
If they count Toyota Scion and Toyota and Toyota Lexus then compare it with GM, not just Chevy which is only one line out of 5 for GM.
Comparing the main Toyota line to Chevy only may not be right. There should be a Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, GMC comparison there. And now would Scion compare to Saturn with Saturn's having added the Auras?
not surprised at all. Toyota is unstoppable at this point in time and their success is always going to be mentioned relative to Chevy and Ford since they are the 3 biggest brands. The thing is Toyota is kicking everyone's butt, not just Chevy and Ford. Most of that recent success is all about the Pruis and Corolla, both models are doing really well this year.
well they will always find a way to show how Toyota is whipping up on GM. Since Toyota is pretty far behind GM's share they will focus on the Toyota-Chevy-ford battle. We will see if this is short lived or a permanent thing. The Malibu and Tahoe hybrid may be able to put Chevy back on top next year.
Of course Toyota's fleet % is far lower- they dont have many trucks to offer and as far as I've seen only the Tacoma is used in fleets in appreciable numbers. Chevy is selling fleet impalas to police depts, governments and rental agencies plus tons of fleet trucks to contractors. Toyota's truck fleet business is probably a fraction of Chevy's and of course that allows the media to say "look how Toyota has blown past Chevy in retail sales".
Of course, one of Toyota's other top 5 models in sales is the Tacoma, which is significantly up in sales since the demise of the Ranger (OK, Ranger is not dead yet, but it might as well be). Toyota hopes next year to match or exceed Tacoma's numbers with Tundra sales, a hope that is MUCH in question at this point.
And then there's the Camry, also up in sales, even if it isn't quite making the front pages of the business section like Prius is.
And they weren't JUST talking about the T-F-C race, they were also talking about the retail sales race among GM, Ford, and Toyota (all brands), which is where Toyota is ahead of the other two by four share points in retail sales.
imidazol: you make good points. The single-brand sales race is mostly just something for fun. But Chevy and Toyota are both full model lines, so it doesn't seem THAT far off-base to compare the two brands. The numbers quoted are for Toyota only, NOT Scion or Lexus.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The investments that Toyota made over the last 30 years in quality, image, marketing (and LUCK) and the mistakes of GM, Ford, and Chrysler over the same period are now revealing themselves. And I would like to see GM's performance over the next 3 to 5 years at least in North America. I don't think that we have quite seen the end of GM's market share erosion in North America. Ford and Chrysler are in the same boat. And sure, there will always be a big market for SUV's and trucks, they will always have leadership in those areas. But if fuel spikes to $5/gallon at some point?
But with GM's using similar models across the brands they are actually competing within themselves. If Chevy were a unique, principal GM line that would be different; it's not.
Is Avalon included in Toyo's totals? Then include Buick Lucerne, e.g. For Ford they need to include Mercury and Lincoln, if not their Ford Volvo, Ford Jaguar, and Ford Land Rover line...
Market share numbers? What do they matter. If you happen to have access to Quicken.com investments site or other company data sources, you can get a picture of the vast differences between say a Honda or Toyota company and a Ford or GM in the way of intrinsic value, profits, cash flow changes, current and long term debt and such. Which company sells more cars or trucks is irrelevant to the bottom line. The real effort for GM is survival, then profitability and not who sold the most iron in the latest month.
While striving for profits, a balancing act of keeping quality inline with current expectations of the modern world, adding new customers, while keeping a base of satisfied customers must be achieved. GM seems to be doing a better job in this respect. Next you add bringing new products online to match, or should I say exceed the competition, while maintaining the afore mentioned, becomes a fairly hard task, as it can eat into the bottom line. Finding the money is not always easy. Current profit is a nice thought, though not always reliable,and a bank full of cash looks nice, if indeed it is not actually much less than is say a debt of 10:1 plus other obligations. Then there is the possible recession. Glad I am not the CEO come a time when some or all of these worries become a reality. May give GM a flip of the coin chance now, which is more than I would have given it last year.
A national health care plan may help, if it should become a reality in USA some day. Many a year from now? Loren
GM- 40% cars and 60% trucks for May, 39% and 61% YTD. Ford- 34% cars and 66% trucks for May, 34% and 66% YTD. Chrysler- 30% cars and 70% trucks for May, 26% cars and 74% trucks YTD
Toyota- 63% cars and 37% trucks for May, 59% cars and 41% trucks YTD Honda- 60% cars and 40% trucks for May, 56% cars and 44% trucks YTD. Nissan- 64% cars and 36% trucks for May, 59% cars and 41% trucks YTD. Hyundai- 66% cars and 34% trucks for May, 66% cars and 34% trucks YTD.
Is Avalon included in Toyo's totals? Then include Buick Lucerne, e.g. For Ford they need to include Mercury and Lincoln, if not their Ford Volvo, Ford Jaguar, and Ford Land Rover line...
That wouldn't help. Toyota has sold more cars than GM for a few years now.
Do you have a point with your links, or are you trying to stir the pot. Did you post anything about the toyota engine sludge mess on Toyota forums??? Diddn't think so.
· 1. Toyota Camry**Includes hybrid model May 2007 Sales: 43,273 Change vs. May 2006: 3.8% · 2. Chevrolet Impala May 2007 Sales: 35,665 Change vs. May 2006: 44.7% · 3. Honda Accord**Includes hybrid model May 2007 Sales: 31,476 Change vs. May 2006: -17.0%
Did they increase Impala fleet sales by 40%? What is to explain a 44.7% jump in sales after all these years for the old gal? Something here just doesn't jive well with reality. If you gave $4K or more off, like the great sale year, a couple ago, you still can not account for such an increase. The car has been out since 2000, then updated with improvements to interior, and the refresh of exterior styling for 2006. All the sudden, not in 2005 or 2006, but in 2007 people need this car. If true, keep that advertising firm - they are precious. Loren
While SUVs are seen as largely optional we cant forget that this includes pickups as well and they are largely used for tasks and plenty of contractors, gov. agencies and self employed people need these trucks.
Depending on hauling needs and particular business, some contractors may consider switching over to Colorado or Dakota size pickup rather than Silverado, Ram, F150. Not every contractor job/business needs a full-size pickup.
Perhaps biggest potential for switching out of full-size pickups are homeowners and others having these type of vehicles and who work in offices for a living.
I have neighbors who use full-size pickups as daily drivers. One guy has a Ram with a Hemi who commutes 40 miles one-way to work and is crying about his bad gas mileage and cost of gas. Another guy has a Silverado for a daily driver and he is an office manager. He hires contractors and others to do all work in and around his house. Never saw him hauling anything in pickup bed. But, he likes the big V8 in that Chevy.
GM still at disadvantage in terms of depending too much on oversize personal vehicles for most of their margin.
Great equalizer, hope it never comes, would be gas rationing. I have heard from old relatives who lived/drove during WWII that car owners were limited to certain amount of gallons each week and there was a lot black market stuff going on back then.
I got the info from the aol headlines today. Could it be the 100k mile powertrain warranty that started for '07 models? Could it be that people have to see it out on the road for it generate interest and the more out there the more head turners thinking nice car and go find out it's quick, roomy, quiet and efficient. I drive past a billboard everyday that says buy a chevy at dlr invoice here (E. side of Indy). There's the $1500 rebate that pays for antilock brakes and a sunroof. There's the 3.9 L V6 that becomes a 1950cc V3 in cruise mode and can probably match the Accord 4 cyl manual for hwy mpg, yet has about 100 more ft-lbs of Torque when you need it. Or it could be police getting it for the V8? Or could it be bad data from aol and the car is still undiscovered?
I bought one for that reason. To drive 10 miles to work. At the time gas was a steady $1.60 a gallon. The 16 mpg truck depreciated half as fast as a car and there is the joy of V8 power and the utility if I ever need it. Gen 3 powered GM Trucks ('99 and later) are known to go 200k mi easy, so there was percieved to be more life in a silverado than a cavalier. Then the ride was great too, big wheelbase, big tire diameter, cabin room and the safe feeling from sitting up higher. At todays gas prices, and with a much longer commute, you could rethink this and maybe switch to a smaller truck. I just got a Sonoma V6 that gets 25 mpg combined which isn't any worse than Accord drivers get for mostly city driving.
Isn't it also a waste to get a new ultra efficient car if you drive only 5000 miles a year?
It takes 55000 miles of use for these cars to make up for the resources consumed in building them.
Indiana has the longest average work commute distance per driver in the US. Did you ever see the lease ads on TV for 33 mpg cars that have an extra charge for over 10k miles a year (the fine print at the bottom)? How is the higher gas mileage supposed to pan out?
Could it be (just my theory, no basis in fact) that the Impala's great sales recently are as a result of the discontinuance of the Ford Taurus, previously the darling of fleet sales (not necessarily car rentals, but fleets include big company car fleets, etc). Nothing really in the Ford lineup including the Ford 500 and/or Fusion has really increased that much since the Taurus line went away. I rented an Impala recently, not a bad car at all, but I think for fleets, it would be wonderful- plenty of room, all the features they need, nicely priced.
But I would be curious to see if Impala sales stay high once the 2008 Malibu is introduced, which is easily the most hyped up GM car coming out in 2008.
Comments
As for family people movers, wasn't there something called the mini-van. Those don't get good gas mileage??? If so, then the question is why not? What did people do before the SUV and Trucks? They certainly did travel in the 1900's. :shades: I do recall the station wagon and the trailers. Oh no, not trailers! Guess people move the whole house when taking a drive these days. Most of the SUVs and trucks I see how zip - nada in the back of them. At the shopping mall, I see a couple of bags of clothes or something in there, but I could fit those in the old Miata, I once owned. :shades: Now, when pressed into real service, I do agree, those SUVs hold a lot of stuff. So why not make them with some gas mileage figures which can match cars, as in require those to be hybrid and leave the fun and more enjoyable cars alone?
*waiting for Rush Limbaugh replies*
Loren
Actually, a black Lucy, with loads of chrome may look kinda nicely blinged.
Just trying to be hip again,
Loren :shades:
Quite right. They are also Ford and Chrysler's problem, since the sales volume of the not-so-big 3 runs something like 70% trucks and SUVs, while their Asian competitors are more like 30% or less.
Gee, my comment wasn't even written at midnight either, so I don't have an excuse, except to point out that "Japanese car makers" includes "green" Honda. Honda isn't a member of the Auto Alliance fwiw (Mitsu and Mazda are).
Bloomberg agrees with you and 62vetteefp.
In a conference with the media, Ballew said the company is undertaking one of its major monthly fleet-sales cuts in June, and that could affect the auto maker's total sales volume for the month. He did not give a specific forecast for GM's June sales performance, which will be reported July 3.
GM's U.S. sales fell 3.4% through the first five months of the year, all because of the cuts in rental-car sales, which are generally considered to be less profitable than sales on the retail level. Retail sales at dealerships were up 2% through May. GM is trying to boost sales to certain fleet customers, such as commercial clients who use medium-duty trucks, Ballew said.
GM cut sales to rental-car companies by 79,301, or 27%, in the first five months of the year as it aims to improve the profitability of its North American operations, which continue to lose money due to high costs, production cuts and other factors.
By cutting sales to rental fleets, LaNeve said the auto maker has been able to boost the resale value of its cars on the market and boost the profitability of the business it still does with rental-car firms.
"That business has become much more profitable for us," LaNeve said.
During the same conference, GM Sales and Marketing Chief Mark LaNeve said the auto maker will launch a Fourth of July sale later in June. The sale likely will be a strategic effort to discount vehicles selectively on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis rather than a big blowout clearance sale.
GM has been steadily decreasing its reliance on incentives, LaNeve said, indicating that buyers are now flocking to the company's brands in order to take advantage of product features and the company's 100,000-mile warranty, rather than bargain-basement discounts and rebates.
LaNeve said GM, which has steadily lost market share in recent years, is ready to start focusing on a plan to accelerate growth. The auto maker is pumping considerable investment into key brands - such as Buick and Saturn - while also revamping its advertising strategy in order to start growing again, especially once the U.S. market picks up again in 2008 and 2009, as GM expects it will.
GM plans to ramp up its marketing drive surrounding the company's improving fuel-economy efforts as it tries to shatter market perceptions of the auto maker as being overly dependent on gas guzzlers. LaNeve said that "we need to do more" in terms of advertising spending and other means to push its fuel-economy message.
"Our story is much, much better than people give us credit for," he said.
The executive pointed out that GM offers 24 models that achieve 30 miles per gallon or more, and it is essentially the fuel-economy leader in trucks and SUVs. Since the late 1970s, GM has improved its passenger-car fleet fuel economy by 133% and its light-truck fleet fuel economy by 75%.
Still, LaNeve said, what he describes as the misperception of GM's fuel-economy efforts is one of the most frustrating parts of his job. He said the company's heavy concentration of trucks in its vehicle lineup may continue to be playing a negative role, even as the auto maker has worked to increase fuel economy in that segment.
"Our strength in trucks works against us in getting our fuel-economy message out," he said.
GM shares recently rose 1%, or 37 cents, to $35.70 on volume of 13.8 million compared with average daily volume of 11.7 million.
-By John D. Stoll, Dow Jones Newswires; 313-510-5002; john.stoll@dowjones.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
I think it's pretty safe to say that GM isn't in favor of an increase, or at least not a large fleet mpg increase.
Toyota does not want the significant increase because it will be near impossible to meet. It will require large increases in cost / price and therefore volume will drop. They had approved the Levin compromise bill while the domestics took a few more days to see the writing on the wall and verbally get behind it.
If you want to make money in the future buy aluminum and magnesium. Look for lots more aluminum body parts and frame parts. First thing that will happen is all the spare wheels will go aluminum or mag. This is always the first item to change when a vehicle is near its mass limit.
A can of Fix-a-Flat is a lot lighter than even a magnesium wheel.
There is a lot of wasted poundage in vehicles these days that could be excised through better design (just as it was in the '70s), but up to now there hasn't been any motivation to spend the money on that.
Even lighter is a button to push that gets a service to come fix it. Many people do it that way now anyway.
Looks like they are going to pass the bill that puts both cars and trucks under one mpg regulatioin. Any full line company (GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota) will soon have to make a decision whether to continue building the trucks in volume. My guess is that Chrysler will decide to drop their large trucks/SUV's in 5 years. Toyota will continue to build the Tundra and other large SUV's but keep the volume of them low relative to their car side. That means that GM/Ford will greatly increase the price of their Pick up trucks and that cost will be just passed on to the contractors customers. This cost will be what it takes to get the corporate numbers up.
Sad day for GM and Ford. Great day for Honda or any other company that does not rely on trucks! DC, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Kia
I have to laugh about your post Nvbanker but in all seriousness well My family has owned 5 Pontiacs and I agree the interiors have always been on the cheap side and yes Pontiacs exterior spanning the 1992-1999 model years were pretty awful with the cladding in all.
However I think the G6 is ok, I have sat in one and wasn;t that bad to sit in anyway.
In my opinion GM still has some work to do in getting their retail sales up because a 2% sales gain in retail sales is basically a relatively flat number.
General Motors Corp. (GM) sales analysis chief Paul Ballew said Thursday the company is implementing a "significant decline" in fleet sales to rental car companies, noting that the auto maker plans to cut rental-car sales by 20,000 vehicles during June. In a conference with the media, Ballew said the company is undertaking one of its major monthly fleet-sales cuts in June, and that could affect the auto maker's total sales volume for the month. He did not give a specific forecast for GM's June sales performance, which will be reported July 3. GM cut sales to rental-car companies by 79,301, or 27%, in the first five months of the year as it aims to improve the profitability of its North American operations, which continue to lose money due to high costs, production cuts and other factors.
Wow, 27%(or 79,301 vehicles) GM cut its rental fleet that is a huge number of cars that they cut in not going to rental fleets. I wonder how long of a period of time GM will continue to cut rental fleet sales and what number percentage wise will GM rental fleet sales stabilize at once Gm stops cutting their sales to rental fleets.
"He said the company's heavy concentration of trucks in its vehicle lineup may continue to be playing a negative role, even as the auto maker has worked to increase fuel economy in that segment."
Well GM's SUV's still sell pretty well even with the high
gas prices factored in in the US market but I do agree with LaNeve that GM's heavy conceration of trucks does play a negative role when it comes to the customers overall perception of GM's fuel economy.
The reason people like the Lucerne is with the V8 and upgraded suspension, it rides like an older LS400 or S420. Big, solid, and heavy. Yet not slow or sloshy in turns. And it's a LOT less money than a E class or Lexus - or even a DTS.
Yes, but isn't the overall market actually DOWN in the same time period? So any carmaker gaining total sales in a market making less sales than usual has got to be doing better than the average bear...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've commended GM on the progress they've made to date. Why would a basher waste time here? I'd like to see a successful and vibrant American car company. Seems to me that criticism of flaws in product and strategy is a lot more constructive than fanboys who will commend any stupid decision a company makes.
Got any numbers to back up those stats? Chrsyler is probably close to 70% trucks, but GM is significantly lower. GM has far more competent cars than Ford or Chrysler. They also have the newest and most fuel efficient trucks. They also have three hybrid GMT900 SUVs coming out. Havent heard about Toyota putting their system on any large trucks yet. I find it interesting that people dont have a problem with Toyota not applying its hybrid technology to its most thirsty vehicles.
dont know who you are talking about because you certainly arent describing the people here who happen to want GM to succeed. I think we are very grounded in reality and quite aware of GM's recent mistakes. Do you have any examples of myself (or others) commending every stupid decision GM has made? Just curious. I find that many people here think ANY criticism is constructive and that is part of the problem. Besides, the "GM fanboys" are not running GM so I dont understand why "truthtellers" like yourself feel so obligated to get us straight about how bad GM is.
GM ran 57% trucks last year (2006) which includes all those crossovers and such. Chrysler ran 68% while Ford corp was 61%. Also remember that GM, while at 57% trucks had a huge protion of the full size truck/SUV segement with their new high mpg vehicles (relative to competition).
In 2005 it was 60%.
Nissan corp. ran 46% trucks, Toyota corp ran 43% trucks while Honda ran 44% trucks.
All OEM's will have to meet the new numbers except perhaps those tiny companies that do not even show up in the automotive news reports. Lotus may be one of them? Just not sure but the ones you mentioned will have to. This will really change things in the industry. Thowe that build the big trucks will have to meet the same standards as the ones who do not. So Honda, with small cars and trucks will not have to spend the big bucks to get the entire fleet up as GM and Ford will.
Again, we will see some companies figure out it will not be worth the money to improve the MPG on the large vehicles and just kill them off. Toyota may even kill it's large trucks just to save the investment/cost increase on the small cars to make up for the large ones.
But in the end I think the public will see what will happen and the regulations will be revised. Just creates havoc for the OEM's to keep revising their product plans.
Somehow decades ago, families with, omygosh, up to "3" kids managed very well with "one" vehicle in the family. They did things, such as Seeing the USA in their Chevrolet or other GM, Ford and Chrysler 4-door sedans. For those wanting a little more room, there were station wagons, but they were built on sedan chasis. Why even young families were able to cart their toddlers/baby to grandma/pa with cribs and other paraphanalia in back seat and/or trunk. Just think of the hardships that families back then endured without having suvs such as Suburbans, Tahoes, Expeditions, Excurisions (now defunct). This hardship was far greater then what our grandparents endured walking to school many miles in ice, snow and zero weather.
Wow, lets all reminisce about those great times. I remember us going on vacation with 7 kids in the back of the 67 Pontiac station wagon. No one wore seatbelts, no child seats for each kid, kids were piled high on top of each other. Luggage piled on the kids and the roof. Great times and I really want to go back to that life. Heck with just one car we went w/o the after school programs and sports. I even remember laying on the "package" shelf in a sedan in the warm sun as my dad barreled upnorth at 70 mph.
No, today we have different expectations just as we had different expectations from our grandparents before us. Of course we should force everyone else to live as we expect them to. Now we just have to figure out which one of us makes the rules.
Woods' contract with Buick will continue through 2010, and he'll still play a limited role in marketing the brand's vehicles. But GM wants Buick ads to focus more on the vehicles themselves, especially with the Enclave crossover – widely considered Buick's most promising new offering in years – just beginning to hit showrooms.
"We don't want a celebrity at the core of any brand. We want the message on Buick to be about Buick," LaNeve said at a news conference Thursday. "Tiger should be on the periphery. When we show him with a car, we're still going to show him with Buicks for the most part. We're just not going to position him as central to the Buick brand."
The extent of Woods' involvement with OnStar is unclear but GM reported he won't be the only celebrity helping to promote the service. In a new television spot, Woods is shown along with Kelly Ripa of "Regis and Kelly" fame and talk show host Jimmy Kimmel using OnStar to get themselves out of various predicaments.
Edit:
Ford- 34% cars and 66% trucks for May, 34% and 66% YTD.
Chrysler- 30% cars and 70% trucks for May, 26% cars and 74% trucks YTD
I'll go dig up the numbers for the big Asian makes later if no one else beats me to it.
Gosh, I hope we DON'T just stick our heads back in the sand for another two decades. Oil isn't getting any cheaper, and the foreign regimes of dubious nature we prop up by exporting our currency for their oil aren't getting any less bold, or any more friendly.
All the CAFE debate is really pointing out to the domestics is just how much their legacy costs and unfavorable labor contracts are hurting them, because they make it much harder for Ford and GM to make profits on smaller cars, which will be crucial as fuel economy ramps up. The legacy costs and unfavorable labor contracts were already a known issue, the CAFE rules don't make that issue any more urgent than it already was (indeed, such a feat would be impossible).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I recall a vacation where a Dad let a me and a friend sit in the back of an old Chevy '50 truck, as we went up to the Sierras. Ah life was good. No worries. Well some deaths and accidents along the way, but none for us, and thus I am sitting here typing this today. I recall the day coming back from summer camp with seven in a Ford Falcon, with all the gear, and it was pretty darn hot. Somehow we all had fun. Sang the song, Henry the 8th, by Herman's Hermits enough times that it is a wonder Mom and Dad did not leave us on the side of the road. All the kids and I made it on home safe and insane.
There was life before the SUV, so I assume there will be life without it.
Of course there will always be a need for some sort of buss for those super sized families. That's what the world needs, a few more billion people.
Loren
Loren
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070616/AUTO01/706160385/1148
What's more, Toyota is far and away (4 full points) the sales leader in the U.S. in retail sales.
GM is doing it right getting the rental sales under a quarter million this year. And they say other fleet sales are more profitable.
The question for GM is, why aren't more individual buyers who are spending their own money choosing GM vehicles? I am confident the Saturn resurgence will improve those numbers somewhat.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The SUV boom has run its course, and car buyers expect a better car from the Asian brands. It will take time for GM's reputation as a car maker to improve and garner increased sales.
If they count Toyota Scion and Toyota and Toyota Lexus then compare it with GM, not just Chevy which is only one line out of 5 for GM.
Comparing the main Toyota line to Chevy only may not be right. There should be a Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, GMC comparison there. And now would Scion compare to Saturn with Saturn's having added the Auras?
I'll leave to to greater minds to scope out.
Then to compare worldwide is a whole other story.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Of course Toyota's fleet % is far lower- they dont have many trucks to offer and as far as I've seen only the Tacoma is used in fleets in appreciable numbers. Chevy is selling fleet impalas to police depts, governments and rental agencies plus tons of fleet trucks to contractors. Toyota's truck fleet business is probably a fraction of Chevy's and of course that allows the media to say "look how Toyota has blown past Chevy in retail sales".
And then there's the Camry, also up in sales, even if it isn't quite making the front pages of the business section like Prius is.
And they weren't JUST talking about the T-F-C race, they were also talking about the retail sales race among GM, Ford, and Toyota (all brands), which is where Toyota is ahead of the other two by four share points in retail sales.
imidazol: you make good points. The single-brand sales race is mostly just something for fun. But Chevy and Toyota are both full model lines, so it doesn't seem THAT far off-base to compare the two brands. The numbers quoted are for Toyota only, NOT Scion or Lexus.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But with GM's using similar models across the brands they are actually competing within themselves. If Chevy were a unique, principal GM line that would be different; it's not.
Is Avalon included in Toyo's totals? Then include Buick Lucerne, e.g. For Ford they need to include Mercury and Lincoln, if not their Ford Volvo, Ford Jaguar, and Ford Land Rover line...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
While striving for profits, a balancing act of keeping quality inline with current expectations of the modern world, adding new customers, while keeping a base of satisfied customers must be achieved. GM seems to be doing a better job in this respect. Next you add bringing new products online to match, or should I say exceed the competition, while maintaining the afore mentioned, becomes a fairly hard task, as it can eat into the bottom line. Finding the money is not always easy. Current profit is a nice thought, though not always reliable,and a bank full of cash looks nice, if indeed it is not actually much less than is say a debt of 10:1 plus other obligations. Then there is the possible recession. Glad I am not the CEO come a time when some or all of these worries become a reality. May give GM a flip of the coin chance now, which is more than I would have given it last year.
A national health care plan may help, if it should become a reality in USA some day. Many a year from now?
Loren
Ford- 34% cars and 66% trucks for May, 34% and 66% YTD.
Chrysler- 30% cars and 70% trucks for May, 26% cars and 74% trucks YTD
Toyota- 63% cars and 37% trucks for May, 59% cars and 41% trucks YTD
Honda- 60% cars and 40% trucks for May, 56% cars and 44% trucks YTD.
Nissan- 64% cars and 36% trucks for May, 59% cars and 41% trucks YTD.
Hyundai- 66% cars and 34% trucks for May, 66% cars and 34% trucks YTD.
That wouldn't help. Toyota has sold more cars than GM for a few years now.
May 2007 Sales: 43,273
Change vs. May 2006: 3.8%
· 2. Chevrolet Impala
May 2007 Sales: 35,665
Change vs. May 2006: 44.7%
· 3. Honda Accord**Includes hybrid model
May 2007 Sales: 31,476
Change vs. May 2006: -17.0%
Loren
Depending on hauling needs and particular business, some contractors may consider switching over to Colorado or Dakota size pickup rather than Silverado, Ram, F150. Not every contractor job/business needs a full-size pickup.
Perhaps biggest potential for switching out of full-size pickups are homeowners and others having these type of vehicles and who work in offices for a living.
I have neighbors who use full-size pickups as daily drivers. One guy has a Ram with a Hemi who commutes 40 miles one-way to work and is crying about his bad gas mileage and cost of gas. Another guy has a Silverado for a daily driver and he is an office manager. He hires contractors and others to do all work in and around his house. Never saw him hauling anything in pickup bed. But, he likes the big V8 in that Chevy.
GM still at disadvantage in terms of depending too much on oversize personal vehicles for most of their margin.
Great equalizer, hope it never comes, would be gas rationing. I have heard from old relatives who lived/drove during WWII that car owners were limited to certain amount of gallons each week and there was a lot black market stuff going on back then.
Isn't it also a waste to get a new ultra efficient car if you drive only 5000 miles a year?
It takes 55000 miles of use for these cars to make up for the resources consumed in building them.
Indiana has the longest average work commute distance per driver in the US. Did you ever see the lease ads on TV for 33 mpg cars that have an extra charge for over 10k miles a year (the fine print at the bottom)? How is the higher gas mileage supposed to pan out?
But I would be curious to see if Impala sales stay high once the 2008 Malibu is introduced, which is easily the most hyped up GM car coming out in 2008.
Thoughts?