Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Loren
:surprise: But all services are covered for the four years.
Loren
Heck, when the IS debuted several years ago, I thought of it as the Lexus version of the Cimmaron! This was supposed to compete with the 3-Series? I don't think so! The instrument panel reminded me of my Mom's old 1987 Dodge Omnni.
The CTS is fast. Typical GM crud. Fast in a straight line and built like a tin can. And deprecitates like one too. I suspect drag-racer bling-bling boys might enjoy it, like they do their pimped-out Escalades but seriously - GM is just hammering more holes in their already sinking ship.
All they are doing is creating a few top-end decent vehicles and - well - how stupid do they think we are? Seriously. A Cobalt is still a piece of junk. So is half of everything Chevy sells, and dear lord the SUVs GM sells are worlds behind the competition with the exception of the Surburban, which is again, pretty much of a niche product.
The thing is - those fancy cars everyone wants but can't afford - they aren't even 10% of their total sales. So the damage and crumbling continues. Honda, otoh, makes a nice 2006 Civic that is a fantastic deal for the money. Way under $20K. Built incredibly well, too, plus a huge amount of power for a car that inexpensive. Oh - and great fuel economy as well.
GM? Seriously. Cobalt or a Civic? No-brainer considering they are the same price.
???. The point of my post was that it is such a better deal than the other hybrids. It is great to innovate but when what you end up with is not worth the money then why? Yes maybe someday the costs will go down and then be able to make economic sense. The Vue makes sense today.
Why would anyone stop building a car that is selling so well?
Why would they come out with "new Coke"?? :P
By the way, there are plenty of import cars I would buy over GM cars in certain segments. However, calling GM cars junk and worlds behind is overboard, but pretty typical of the anti-GM posters on Edmunds.
And Buick gets......a "super" LaCrosse?? What are they thinking here? They will then have TWO medium-large sedans, with the same powertrain (Lacrosse "super" gets the V-8 from the upper trims of the Lucerne), selling at approximately the same price and having approximately the same size. Yeah, that's the way to boost sales. :-P
Meanwhile, this is not actually what dealers wanted to hear - they want an "entry level Buick". Big mistake. Lacrosse CX is already too entry-level for this brand, and it shows in the equipment level and powertrain.
Good news is P-B-GMC is 61% consolidated, with GM looking to make it 80% ASAP. The VP of something-or-other said it was not a huge priority almost in the same breath as he said they were looking to boost it to 80% in short order! :-P
If they can get that number anywhere near 100%, it will minimize the pain if GM needs to shut Buick in the next few years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The new Impala is 2.8 inches shorter than the Lucerne, and 3.6 inches longer than a 300. It also splits the difference between a 7-series and and S-class. Like the Lucerne it is based on an updated GM10 format with and available 5.3 litre V-8, bigger than any Infiniti or Lexus.
It may be tiny compared to a '75 Imperial, but compared to modern mid-sized cars such as the Malibu, Camry and Accord it is a large car.
If you've personally driven a Equinox you'd know why I said they won't appeal to the same person, sure they look similar on paper, but the Nox is so much bigger inside than the GV that it could be a practical car for a family, the previous generation GV (not the XL-7) just wasn't big enough to play that role, although the new GV may be large enough to play in that space.
As for the Swift being potentially U.S. legal that's just common sense. It would foolish for a company like Suzuki that has the expertise and know how to build good quality small cars not to at least consider the possibility that a market for such a car would or could exist in the U.S. (gasoline topped $3.00 a gallon last year!!!) and to incorporate as much "U.S. ready" hardware as possible in the early stages of design and development. Suzuki also has access to all the regulations that they must comply with from all the countries where they MAY want to market their little car, this knowledge would allow them to build the car to the "highest" or "hardest" regulation or standard. this is the World car apporach of design and development. (this is likely common practice because it has the potential to save a lot of money ) For example, the SMART cars are imported into the U.S. by a company the is not affiliated with Daimler/Chrysler, and yes they do have to modify the cars slightly, but because the U.S. market was taken into account when the cars were designed the amount of modification is small enough so that it is feasible for a small (smaller than Daimler/Chrysler anyway) company to import the cars, make the modifications and sell the cars for an amount that isn't completely outrageous.
It is a common practice for companies to design cars with and eye on the U.S. market and not actually introduce the cars here for other reason. For example the BMW 1 series. Lots of buzz was around as that car was getting ready to launch but finally BMW decided not to sell the car here because it might "Dilute" the BMW image in America, this is the kind of "business" reason I'm talking about. Some times these cars do eventually make it to U.S. shores, some times they don't - another example, the Cadillac BLS this car is based on The Malibu/93/G6 chassis, yet Cadillac isn't planning on selling it here, heck the car it's based on is sold here! this is another example of "Business" reasons.
Even companies who don't have a presence in the U.S. keep an eye on our regulations because they have links to companies that have a presence in the U.S. For example the 2007 Nissan Sentra is said to be based upon a new Renault design.
Most importantly, Suzuki's own Swift press material states that the car was designed to be sold "Around the world". (which is where I got the idea that is was coming to the U.S. in the first place.)
Rocky
Excuse me you need to get your eye sight checked if your going to call the 07' GMT-900ers "worlds behind the competition" :surprise:
plekto pal, please just be upfront and admit you hate GM. People like me can accept that. The truth is most important.
Rocky
-Compare the Cobalt to the Civic and Corolla based upon JD Power survey data, and you'll find that the Cobalt led in no categories, and generally rounded out the bottom of many categories
-Based upon its owner surveys, Consumer Reports predicts reliability of "much worse than average" (its bottom ranking) for the Cobalt, while ranking the Civic and Corolla "much better than average"
-Edmunds ranks the Cobalt below its peers based upon poor handling and poor fit-and-finish
-Chevy has overall lower quality rankings than do Toyota or Honda, per JD Power
-Per the Auto Leasing Guide, Chevy's, Buicks, etc. are projected to lose a greater percentage of their value than are Hondas or Toyotas
I could go on, but you can see the point -- there is no shortage of evidence that the Cobalt is an inferior product. What you save in the front end may well be lost at the back through lower reliability, greater hassle and worse resale. Why should any reasonable consumer be expected spend thousands of dollars on an appliance as risky as that?
Why would they come out with "new Coke"??
HUHH? New Coke was brought out to compete with Pepsi with a more Pepsi like taste. Seemed like younger folks liked the Pepsi more and Coke was worried. Fell flat on thier face because if they already liked Pepsi why would they buy something similar for the same price? They stopped making New Coke because it did not sell. Now Malibu is a midsize car, I guess you could say is similar to the imports by being FWD, etc. but it is selling well. So unlike New Coke why would they quit making it? Guess I do not understand your comment.
No, it looks at the duty cycle of the engine and the ambient temperature conditions. If you drive in dusty areas it cannot tell. It cannot tell what kind of oil you use. It assumes you use at least the recommended grade.
I was told by my former Acura dealer that the TL would factor in dusty conditions. Anyone know if that was true ?????
Rocky
Rocky
Using this as the standard to measure the success of a car, it's an abyssmal failure. The car only sells well becuase it's cheap. I don't think that they've ever sold one for sticker and would be lucky to get invoice.
Rocky
Where did you read this? I have never seen a statement saying any car would not require rebates. Even, oh my, Camry's and Accord's have rebates, oh my!
Well I might be wrong on the rebates. Right now I could find no rebates on the Camry/Accord and the Malibu has $500. does anyone have a good source for rebates?
-Compare the Cobalt to the Civic and Corolla based upon JD Power survey data, and you'll find that the Cobalt led in no categories, and generally rounded out the bottom of many categories
I'll accept that. On average it was about one circle (out of 5) lower than the other 2. There were no reliability marks for the cobalt.
-Based upon its owner surveys, Consumer Reports predicts reliability of "much worse than average" (its bottom ranking) for the Cobalt, while ranking the Civic and Corolla "much better than average"
I call BS on Consumer reports on this. They default every chevy car to much worse than average, and every honda/toyota to much better. I have an online subscription to CR. They do their survey every summer. By last summer there were very few cobalts on the road, and those were from the first few production runs (which often have problems to iron out with ALL manufacturers - see '06 civic gas pedal recall) Last summer there were exactly 0 06 civics on the road, but somehow they were much more dependable than average before they even came out.
-Edmunds ranks the Cobalt below its peers based upon poor handling and poor fit-and-finish
The edmunds comparison compared a base cobalt to mid-upper trim models of everything else, then slammed it on its lack of features (like power windows) and cheap materials. Guess what? the mid to upper trim cobalts have power windows and better interior materials. They also have some options like leather seats and XM radio that Civic and Cobalt didn't at the time.
-Chevy has overall lower quality rankings than do Toyota or Honda, per JD Power
Again, I can't argue with this, but they are all above average acording to JD Power.
-Per the Auto Leasing Guide, Chevy's, Buicks, etc. are projected to lose a greater percentage of their value than are Hondas or Toyotas
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that percentage is based on the original sticker price. A big part of the "depreciation" is the fact that GM's cars sell at a steeper discount from sticker that Honda/Toyota, so they've immediately "lost" value from the sticker before they're even sold.
All in all, I'd say that civic and corolla are somewhat better than cobalt. That's why they should, and do, sell at higher prices for similar packages of features. The cavalier was a horribly outdated embaressment. The cobalt has closed much of the gap, but some still remains. If chevy doesn't let it languish for 10 years without an update like the cavalier, they'll be just fine. Another improvement of the same magnitude, and they will have a class leading vehicle. Nobody goes from garbage to gold overnight.
I can't believe how many people worship this car as the benchmark. :lemon:
The Cobalt might not handle quite as well, but in a road race the Cobalt will smoke the Civic. I really after looking at a Cobalt SS supercharged can't see where this "HUGE" gap in quality. I actually think the "engineering benchmark" should be given to Chevy for making such a nice ease of use cockpit, instead of something that looks straight out of Star Trek, or
the Jetsons.
Rocky
Personally, I couldn't care less about the car, in that I don't buy budget compact cars for myself these days. But if I was a GM stockholder or employee, I'd be royally peeved that they blew this opportunity to create a winning car.
Basic question: Why should anybody be expected to buy this car above another? If I have $15-18k to spend on a small car, dedicating it to a Cobalt would be pretty dumb unless I happen to love it so much that I don't particularly care about the practical consequences. Lower resale, lower reliability, poorer fit and finish, poorer handling, more risk to my hard-earned cash. The fact that it is better than the Cavalier is irrelevant to a customer -- what matters is how it compares to other new cars available for sale.
By last summer there were very few cobalts on the road, and those were from the first few production runs (which often have problems to iron out with ALL manufacturers - see '06 civic gas pedal recall)
On the whole, Civics have vastly better track records and historically have been much better cars. Focusing on the occasional flaw in the Honda lineup, while glossing over numerous examples of problems in the GM lineup, is a double standard that does no good for the unfortunate Cobalt owner.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that percentage is based on the original sticker price. A big part of the "depreciation" is the fact that GM's cars sell at a steeper discount from sticker that Honda/Toyota, so they've immediately "lost" value from the sticker before they're even sold.
I believe that you are correct about it being based upon MSRP. But the fleet market and poorer expected reliability also major contributors to more steeply declining values, so the difference is still in favor of the Civic and Corolla.
Rocky
The Malibu reminds me of the Cobalt...worlds better than the car it replaced, but it isn't a leader.
They won't (in large numbers) at the same price, that's why chevy had to offer large rebates and has cut the sticker price. So now you can get more features on a cobalt than on a similarly priced civic or corolla, and that's why someone would buy a cobalt instead.
On the whole, Civics have vastly better track records and historically have been much better cars. Focusing on the occasional flaw in the Honda lineup, while glossing over numerous examples of problems in the GM lineup, is a double standard that does no good for the unfortunate Cobalt owner.
That's exactly my point. You can't just focus on a few problems from the first batch of a new model. Looking at CR's website, the cavalier had average reliability for all but one (2003) of the last 7 years. If they drop the Cobalt down two whole levels from that for problems on cars from the first few production runs, they should do the same to the civic.
I'm not saying the cobalt is as reliable as the new civic. It probably isn't. But IMHO it's way too early to say the cobalt is horribly unreliable and the 06 civic is the second coming, and it was certainly WAAAAAAY too early last summer when CR did their most recent survey.
I believe that you are correct about it being based upon MSRP. But the fleet market and poorer expected reliability also major contributors to more steeply declining values, so the difference is still in favor of the Civic and Corolla.
Yes, the fleet sales do harm resale, and until GM brings their production capacity inline with their market share, they'll be stuck dumping cars into rental fleets. That to me was the biggest factor in me dropping the cobalt from consideration when I was in the market last summer. It's a problem GM is going to have to address on all of their vehicles.
They won't (in large numbers) at the same price, that's why chevy had to offer large rebates and has cut the sticker price. So now you can get more features on a cobalt than on a similarly priced civic or corolla, and that's why someone would buy a cobalt instead.
On the whole, Civics have vastly better track records and historically have been much better cars. Focusing on the occasional flaw in the Honda lineup, while glossing over numerous examples of problems in the GM lineup, is a double standard that does no good for the unfortunate Cobalt owner.
That's exactly my point. You can't just focus on a few problems from the first batch of a new model. Looking at CR's website, the cavalier had average reliability for all but one (2003) of the last 7 years. If they drop the Cobalt down two whole levels from that for problems on cars from the first few production runs, they should do the same to the civic.
I'm not saying the cobalt is as reliable as the new civic. It probably isn't. But IMHO it's too early to say the cobalt is horribly unreliable and the 06 civic is the second coming, and it was certainly WAAAAAAY too early last summer when CR did their most recent survey.
I believe that you are correct about it being based upon MSRP. But the fleet market and poorer expected reliability also major contributors to more steeply declining values, so the difference is still in favor of the Civic and Corolla.
Yes, the fleet sales do harm resale, and until GM brings their production capacity inline with their market share, they'll be stuck dumping cars into rental fleets. That to me was the biggest factor in me dropping the cobalt from consideration when I was in the market last summer. It's a problem GM is going to have to address on all of their vehicles.
Well, you know since it is not here yet it is going to be a home run.... like the Cobalt and G6 were going to be!
You know, I'm not here because I hate GM. I've never owned one of their cars, but I've rented them. I've had friends who owned them. I guess I'm just morbidly fascinated as to how such a large company can get it wrong for SO many years! How can this be? How can it be that I'm no management guru, yet the needs are so obvious?
Another thing I see here is that the GM fans blame a variety of reasons for GM's problems...some of them legitimate. The GM "bashers" blame the problems on other things.... many of them also legitimate. Yet us GM "bashers"...many of us would like to see a successful American car company. We'd like to be proud of GM, of Ford. They started this industry... how could it have gotten so bad?
The one thing I don't understand about the GM loyalists is that you're continuing to blame a lot of things on forces outside of GM. Many of you continue to say that their cars are in fact as good...almost as good...better in some cases - than the competition.
The problem is that this company has gone from a 50% market share to around half of that. Most of us, we will buy brands that we've known and had good luck with. If you grew up with GM and they were good...you'll probably buy GM. Same for other makes. The fact remains that statistically, more people have been abandoning GM than moving toward GM. Few people are abandoning Toyota, or Honda...so their market share goes up. More people are abandoning GM...so their market share goes down.
Why is this? Does it do any good to say that you think their vehicles are just as good, or even better? If you care about GM, why not channel all of the blame into wanting to build superior products? I mean, isn't the bashing of imports, currencies, stupid hybrid-loving Americans, non-union labor--- isn't that just sticking your head in the sand?
So here's a question for the board. If you want GM to be successful, what do you do, NOW, to make it better? What do you do if you're Rick Waggoner to turn this around? If GM management is so poor (and many of us might agree), then what do you do? You're CEO for a year, what changes do you make? Do you think the US government will fix the problem? Do you tax the successful competitors to create an artificial market and try to avoid globalization? Or do you try to have this company build world-class products? Would you be proud of GM if the quality continues as in the past but the laws and taxes limit competition? Or would you actually want GM to build outstanding products?
In the 1970's the American makes had the reputation and the new small cars from Toyota and Honda had to prove themselves. Even if a Toy or Hon was superior, do you really think it got name reconition over the "big names" like the Pinto or the Vega? It's the same situation 30 years later... the difference is that now it's Toy and Hon that have the name reputation and not GM or Ford. How do you think that happened? What is it that caused ToyHon to get the good name and Ford and GM to lose it? What did those companies do to earn the name? What should Ford and GM do to earn it back?
As an aside, Rocky you know I'm never replying to be antagonistic to you. We all appreciate your posts and it is a good dialogue we're having here. It's just that you post the best lines to respond to.
Loren
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The 50% market share was when there were 3 car companies selling? and how many have moved into the market now? You can't really feel that GM should be selling 50% with 8 car companies sharing the main market levels? Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Kia, Ford, Chrysler, GM, Nissan?
OTH I do agree they should be selling more than they are of the automobile market.
>If you want GM to be successful, what do you do, NOW, to make it better
Some days I just think we should let the GM-savagers show how they would do it. Let them take over the board-require a certain level or performance or they're out the door. Talk is cheap.
>Do you tax the successful competitors
I think an appropriate levy on outside companies who are not carrying their share of retirees and healthcare here would be appropriate. Their home countries have socialized medicine and retirement setups that aren't here. They get those subsidies at home; they can cover the cost equivalent here via a tax or levy.
I recall an acquaintance back from Germany 25 or 20 years ago who said he was staying until he could retire because of the great retirement plan. But he was paying close to 50% in taxes--his statement.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Compare the average transaciton prices including incentives. Plenty of Accords, Camrys and Altimas roll off the floor for between 20k and 25k. When was last time somebody paid that much for a Malibu? I'd go there for a pristine restored SS from the early 70s but nobody would pay that for a new one. I saw Malibu Maxxes in the paper for $16,500. The sticker on that car with it's standard 6 cyl and crappy leather was like $25k.
Just moving alot of units does not make a car a success especially if you have to discount it so much that you're probably not breaking even on it. We were promised a car that would compete based on it's merits and not price and we didn't get it. Maybe the 2007s will do it.
Same back at ya pal. I love hearing your opinion along with everyone elses. I do set my self up. The sad thing is I know that before I post it. "I can visualize the butcher knifes coming"
So here's a question for the board. If you want GM to be successful, what do you do, NOW, to make it better? What do you do if you're Rick Waggoner to turn this around? If GM management is so poor (and many of us might agree), then what do you do? You're CEO for a year, what changes do you make? Do you think the US government will fix the problem? Do you tax the successful competitors to create an artificial market and try to avoid globalization? Or do you try to have this company build world-class products? Would you be proud of GM if the quality continues as in the past but the laws and taxes limit competition? Or would you actually want GM to build outstanding products?
what do you do, NOW, to make it better? -
I would put political pressure on republicans that want to get elected again. I would tell them that we will get democrats elected. I and Bill Ford will back them with enough cash that you guys won't have a chance.
What do you do if you're Rick Waggoner to turn this around? -
Rick needs to buy copy's of his biggest competitors and reverse engineer it. Go to Johnson Controls and demand better quality grades on interior parts even if it costs a few bucks more. I'd work out a deal with the UAW like Uncle Bill Ford Sr. did back in the 90's. I'd ask them to give up some perks now, but promise them that you will be rewarded later. I'd keep that promise. I'd also ask them to give up future raises for bonus incentive money like Toyota is doing to keep productivity up.
If GM management is so poor (and many of us might agree), then what do you do? You're CEO for a year, what changes do you make?-
I would "down size" my white collar workforce on the auto buisness side, or try to roll them over into other parts of my buisness, when I acquire new contracts. I would try to get into other sectors like building Military Equipment, Look at building Commercial and Military Airplanes, Try to diversify my company beyond cars. I've always said selling hughes electronics was a big NO NO !!!! I'd do everything I could to make GMAC a profit maker and restore it's credit rating like it was in the past. Perhaps get back into building locomotives, refridgerators, Diversification like a good portfolio is what needs to be done at GM. Look at the success of the other GENERAL named General Electric. FUTURE:
I'd take back Delphi, Buy a good stake in Johnson Controls, Gentex, to have a monopoly on the automotive suppliers part. I'd also buy even more into Electronic Data Systems, and dump money into IBM, in the future.
Do you think the US government will fix the problem?-
Not under this congress and president. I however would put political pressure on the incumbents, and perhaps if push comes to shove back the other party (democrats) Bush isn't up for re-election, but the republicans would not want Ford and Chrysler to rally the blue collar and UAW crowd. They actually vote.
Do you tax the successful competitors to create an artificial market and try to avoid globalization?-
It's not a matter of simply taxing your competitors, but to also make them play by the same rules as GM. The U.S. government shouldn't allow foreign enterprise to come into this country and set up plants "tax free". Hell not all NFL teams get that luxury when they build stadiums. GM should get any tax deductions that the foreigners get to avoid a unfair un-level playing field. If you want into our market your going to be held accountable to stricter rules. GM and it automobiles are basically aren't allowed in Japan. They are tariffed heavely. Yes tariffs on the imports wouldn't hurt. Toyota, Honda etc etc are well know union breakers and should be fined when they get their hand caught in the cookie jar. When they fire it's employees for trying to organzie which is a "right" in this free country it shouldn't be tolerated.
Or do you try to have this company build world-class products?-
GM is in certain segments. The Quality and
"fit and finish" on many of their new vehicle launches are as good as the competition in many segments. However yes I agree their is still more room for improvement.
Would you be proud of GM if the quality continues as in the past but the laws and taxes limit competition? Or would you actually want GM to build outstanding products?
I as CEO of GM would want nothing more than a level playing field. I would appreciate the government to step in and give me a hand-out like they did for the oil-industry, air-line industry, since money seems to grow on trees and the public tells me deficit spending is good for our country and economy. :P However if I can't get that then I want a level-playing field. I'd work closely with my UAW buddies to help get my foreign competition unionized. I'd pump a few bucks secretly in the UAW fund to exploit my competition to close the labor gap here in the States. I'd enjoy seeing if they are yellow belly pigs like I think they are. If they start getting cold feet then I would exploit them with media coverage. I am CEO of General Motors, the 2nd largest company on the face of the earth, behind General Electric. GE be prepared to become #2 once again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chief Executive Officer: Rocky
OK lets say GM does somehow get it's plant capacity in line with whatever voume that is. Who will be supplying the fleet? Many keep saying GM (and other domestics) dump their vehicles into fleet. Do you think that "fleets" need fewer cars? they do not exists to buy an overabundance of cars.
What will happen is that the cars will not sell as cheaply as they do now. They will still be produced and sold to the fleets. the residuals will not change, however the domestics might start making some more profit on the sales.
I've already answered it elsewhere on this website, but it's pretty obvious what types of things have to be done:
-Reduce the number of nameplates (more than three times the number than Toyota Motor Corp., yet the same amount of R&D spending, means less investment per nameplate)
-Punt on the excessive badge engineering. No more clone cars and confused identities -- a Chevy should have a distinct identity and market niche that is different from a Pontiac, one that is worthwhile to the consumer.
-Build cars that people want, not just cars built for those folks named "Avis" and "National"
-Set the standard in the subcompact and compact car categories so that young buyers want the product and are more likely to stay with the brand once they get a taste for it. Don't just build a POS, then make excuses for it and blame Edmunds for the fate that you get.
-If you're going to stay fat in the fleet market, at least provide decent cars to the rental companies so that people who rent aren't completely turned off by your product. If people come away from the cars not pleased with them, the problem is with the cars, not the people.
-Develop interesting designs that don't attempt to copy the Germans or Japanese so that the car offers a unique value proposition, rather than a second-rate copy of something that is better executed by the competition.
-Price the cars rationally in the first place so that consumers don't become conditioned to expect rebates, and resale goes into the toilet as a matter of course
-Change the manufacturing process to emulate Toyota's TQM team assembly and JIT inventory system, the best manufacturing process in the business
And finally:
-Demand that GM management grow up and act like real Americans, by taking a bit of responsibility for what they do, instead of blaming others for what they haven't done. Stop pointing fingers at everything and everyone else, creating fanciful stories about conspiracies and cabals, and remember that the country could have never become what it is had everyone whined, moaned and cried Media Conspiracy instead of acting with some resolve. If all they can do is blame the dog for eating their homework, then they deserve to fail.
Rocky, I totally agree with this part of your answer.
I agree less with your political approaches.
Answering my last question, you added political elements but never really answered: don't you want GM to build world-class products? You went political on it again, but shouldn't the innovation and quality be the *first* priority, even before taxes, level playing field, etc.?
Here's a scenario: if GM and Ford had seen the competition coming in 1970, and continued to innovate with better and better products, then I could see that GM today might be selling cars superior to the Accord and Camry -- at a $3K price premium. The market would tolerate it because the products were better. GM would have the name more than those other cars. And the UAW could flex more to help their company stay competitive, which would mean less of the manufacturing of the Big 2 going overseas.
Er, these incentives are used far more often and more extensively by the Big 2.5 than by the "imports." Per Automotive News, here are the current factory-to-dealer incentives being offered:
CHRYSLER
2005 models
Chrysler Crossfire $5,000
Pacifica, Town & Country $4,000
Sebring $3,000-$4,000
PT Cruiser $2,000-$3,500
300 $1,000
Dodge Durango $7,000
Ram 1500 (excl. SRT-10) $6,000
Dakota, Ram 2500/3500 (excl. diesel) $4,500
Caravan, Grand Caravan $4,000
Ram 2500/3500 diesel $3,500
Stratus $3,000-$3,500
Magnum $3,000
Neon, Ram SRT-10, Viper $1,000
Jeep Grand Cherokee $4,500-$5,500
Liberty (excl. diesel) $4,000
Liberty diesel $3,000
Wrangler $2,000
FORD
2006 models
Lincoln LS $5,000
2005 models
Ford Expedition $2,000
GM
2006 models
Cadillac DTS, STS $1,000
Chevrolet SSR $1,000
Hummer H2 SUT/SUV $2,000
2005 models
Hummer H2 SUT/SUV $5,500
Lincoln LS $8,000
Aviator $3,000
Town Car $1,000
Mercury Grand Marquis $1,000
In addition, the Ford owned luxo nameplates (Jaguar, Land Rover) and the lead nameplate of the German-owned Chrysler (Mercedes) are offering incentives.
Compare that to the Japanese and Korean nameplates. Aside from some minor rebating from Mitsubishi and some blowout discounts from the troubled Isuzu, here are the current factory-to-dealer incentives:
Toyota: None
Scion: None
Nissan: None
Acura: None
Infiniti: None
Lexus: None
Honda: $500 on Accords, $1,000 on Ridgelines
Hyundai: None
Subaru: None
Mazda: None
Take a look at GM's sales figures, and you can see that by June 2005, the company had sold over 102,000 Cobalts since the beginning of the year.
Are you saying that it was not fair to evaluate a car when over 100,000 had already been sold? Or that the first 100,000 customers should naturally expect to get substandard quality and just deal with it?
And it's not just CR that provides similar results. Go to the official ODI website for Technical Service Bulletins (TSB's) from NHTSA and you find the number of TSB's that have been issued thus far for the 2006 models of these cars:
Cobalt: 36
Civic: 7
Corolla: 3
The Chevy has over 3 1/2 times more service bulletins issued for it than have the other two cars combined. Not even close.
If that wasn't bad enough, the 2005 model of the Cobalt had 74 TSB's! Is it any wonder that CR would give it the rating that it did?
Management at GM knows exactly what it is doing. Keep the investments and R&D on most of GM's autos to a minimum for the intermediate term; build 'em cheaply, put them in the fleets, then sell them as used cars after a year.
Here is an interesting stat that I've heard twice from two sources on opposite ends of the country, but I cant verify it. They said that at GM stores used autos outsold new autos by a 3/1 margin. At a HonYota store used vehicles are about 50% of new sales. In other words the GM dealers are living off their UC sales. For GM it makes sense given their heavy burden to make 'Used' autos, just pretend that they're new. Get them into the UC market as soon as possible so that the dealers can survive.
I've heard things along similar lines. Is it fair to guess that a lot of this used inventory are the fleet buybacks being put out to market? Those rental car "sales" often involve repurchase at the end of the term, at which point something needs to be done with those vehicles.
The problem is people will not tolerate a $3K premium from GM even if it's better. Loren for one is griping about how expensive american cars. Many others would still demand a discount and if they didn't get that big discount then they would buy something else. I agree with your wanting them to build a first class car, and for example look at the Buick Lucerne, some people are demanding a big discount before they buy. It's a first class car with superior reliability and quality and people want more. Can GM afford to wait it out and not give them anything and tell them they are going to get little, or no discount ????
I think even you know that answer.
I do agree and I perhaps didn't mention it enough in my response is #1 you got to build the best car. however even at a $3K premium GM still won't make as much profit as the Japanese for the reasons I listed above. The playing field is so far out of *Whack* it's not even funny.
Glad we agree on a few things.
Rocky