I think the so called formula broke down when the compact cars became increasing popular. GM tried to apply the formula to the compacts too, and then you have a lot of different sized cars at different prices and much overlap. GM still has that. The LaCrosse is more expensive than than some Lucernes. Some Lucernes are cheaper than some Impalas (like the SS). Cadillacs are cheaper than Lucernes (CTS).
Well, I actually see Xrunner's point here, and will go a little further.
As niche products that feed minimal demand, performance cars often serve the purpose of bringing glory, excitement and positive attention to the nameplate. Sometimes, earning profits from the car can be secondary, just so long as it builds the nameplate's image and helps to sell other cars by creating some magic for the overall brand.
The GTO didn't sell in large numbers or meet even modest expectations, so I doubt that it was profitable. But did it help the Pontiac nameplate build any credibility, excitement or mystique?
I don't know for sure, but my guess is "no". The car suffers from the typically bad grilles of the Pontiac line (a pretty poor corporate face, IMO), is fairly innocuous otherwise, and doesn't bring back the glories of the old car, nor particularly resonate with the public. The car was basically invisible, and it's a fair bet that resale will be pretty awful, a sign of a lack of popularity or demand.
So what was the point? At this juncture, every failure or mediocre car just serves to undermine an already fragile nameplate. The nameplate needs some hits -- the Solstice is a potentially fine start, but whether that's enough is hard to say.
"Closing down Oldsmobile was less than a billion dollars. That was not a lot. They could close down the whole company on what they have lost in the last year."
A VERY pertinent point. Some savings would be realized immediately from shutting down a division, and more over time. Ten years out, closing Olds will have been one of the smartest things they did this decade.
If you are losing billions anyway, why not spend one of those billions closing down Buick? Turn the Enclave into a Chevy before it ever even wears a Buick badge. Cancel the LaCrosse - that wasn't much of an update anyway, certainly not as expensive as an all-new model usually is. Call the Lucerne a Chevy (or give it a better suspension and larger rims and tires and call it a Pontiac), kill all the other Buicks you were about to kill anyway, and you are done. Well, pay off the 20% of dealers who are not combo P-B-GMC dealers already, and THEN you are done! :-)
andre: with your prose style, you should write books.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The basic problem with eliminating a brand name is that the current owners are left out in the cold and will have no reason to buy some other GM brand. Some will, but some will not. As I have stated before, a Cadillac platform should not be sold as a Chevy. The Lucerne is a Cadillac platform.
I think that one thing that GM must do is make low priced platforms for Chevy and Pontiac. Medium priced platforms that are used at Buick and possibly Cadillac or possibly Pontiac, but not both. The Enclave will actually go into production for other divisions before Buick gets one.
GM's total sales have slipped to a bit over 4 million in the US market. GM is trying to reduce their production capacity, which is probably more than 5 million. My thinking is that eliminating Buick, Pontiac and GMC would reduce capacity to about 3 million and sales to about 3 million. A win-win combination. Dumping Buick alone does very little one way or the other. You will still have most of the Buick dealers since most are Buick_Pontiac_GMC dealers or will be.
When Oldsmobile was still in business, they had several models in production while Buick had three, all cars. Buick was outselling Oldsmobile, even though Olds had 4 lines of cars, a minivan and a truck.
Well Edmund's used prices for the 2004 GTO shows that it is worth more than the top of the line Bonneville or Grand Prix. The Bonneville is not much less, but the Grand Prix is $8000 less as are lower end Bonnevilles.
Holden probably made money on the GTO. It was one of several clones of the Monaro sold in various markets.
I would agree that Pontiac's styling is poor and the GTO is not a looker. The Solstice is a much better car to draw people into Pontiac showrooms.
I think that GM might do better if they scale back operations to a level of production capacity of about 3 million vehicles for the US market. This would mean dumping Buick, Pontiac and GMC along with the dealers.
when you put it that way, it makes a ton of sense. Although I suspect that even after Pontiac, Buick, and GMC are gone, they will still have excess production capacity.
To put it another way, the latest plan that has them downsized 25% or so by 2012 may still not meet the goal of eliminating overcapacity. It depends on if GM can turn around their huge decline in popularity in the next few years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think GM expects that they are nearing some bottom soon. With the right products and price, I think that they might hold onto as much as 20% of the US market - that would be around 3.5 million vehicles. A fair share of the market is probably more like 1/6 of it - 15% - 3 million vehicles.
Well Edmund's used prices for the 2004 GTO shows that it is worth more than the top of the line Bonneville or Grand Prix. The Bonneville is not much less, but the Grand Prix is $8000 less as are lower end Bonnevilles.
Perhaps we can both do a bit of other research, but a couple of points:
-The value isn't too helpful if you don't know the percentage of depreciation loss. If the GTO had a higher price tag to begin with, then I would expect its dollar value to be higher than another car that was less costly when it was new.
-If you're going to compare the GTO with the M5, etc., then compare the amount and percentage of depreciation with those same cars. I don't know for sure, but in relative terms, I would guess that the M5, M3, etc. would have held their values substantially better than the GTO. As is true with most "American" cars, residuals are often pretty poor. Residuals effectively reflect the marketplace voting with its dollars, and I have my doubts that the marketplace thought too highly of the car as compared to its competitors.
Actually I was commenting about the marketers and designers more than the buyers. The market is there and ready to buy, it's the company's job to decipher it and produce product that will meet the demand, fill the plants and make a profit.
Who agreed to bring a model here that might sell 18000 units!!! then fail at it. GM/F/CofD are in a world of hurts now. They don't need T-birds, Chargers and GTO's. They need Fusions, more Fusions, Focus' that light up the compact segment, a new 300 and a GM winner of some kind. They have to fill 1 Million units of factory space - each - just with autos. Trucks and SUV's are stable and profitable. But if they want to increase their auto presence it can't be to a narrow segment like muscle cars.
OK when they recover and money is flowing in these are cherries to be added to increase profit ( see FJ Cruiser (. But to base your company's hopes to avoid BK on an 18K unit GTO.... then fail to sell that many!!! God!!!
GTO=R.I.P. I good idea poorly executed and just as poorly marketed.Proof that it takes more than a big honking V8 to capture the gear heads dollars. Also proof that everything Lutz touches isn't going to be gold. Now the Soltice is starting to build up on dealers lots.Our local dealer is advertising 4 for immediate delivery.(do I hear the wispers of rebates coming?) In the past 5 months how many different stories have floated out of detroit as to the GTO's fate? It's on , it's off, photo's of a face lift, a new platform. Now it's official, it's dead. Do those GM diehards still not see the problem that is still alive and well within the GM corporate walls, or is it still your position that it's the unions, the japanese, etc,etc.? GM products are still too much alike,still all going for the same customer, and like it or not stuck with the well earned immage of airport rent-a-cars. Those posters who see GM taking share from the likes of BMW are so out of touch that they might as well consider themselves part of the GM problem rather that any solution. Bill C.
Good point: climate control is a very useful option..why is it so damned expensive? I am driving a car with manual heat/AC, and it takes a few minutes to adjust things right (particularly in very hot and cold ambients.) In reading about the old EDSEL, that car had a primitive climate control (some kind of thermostatic control) in 1959! Did those old units work OK? I'd be happy with something that would just throttle back the heat, once the cabin warmed up.
why automatic climate control is so expensive. Or why it's one of those things they feel they have to put in one car but not another. I also double-checked my old Consumer Guide, and was wrong on pricing. Now on GM cars where a/c was optional, it was $750. But now here's something weird...on the LeSabre acc was $900, but on the Delta 88 it was only $805. It was $900 on the Regal, as well. Manual a/c was standard on the Riviera, so acc was a $150 option. But on the Electra it was a $165 option. But only a $125 option for the Ninety-Eight. Strange that the prices would vary like that.
The only car I ever had with acc was my Grandma's '85 LeSabre, and admittedly even with that I was constantly playing around with the temperature settings. It was nice though, to have it not blow any air in the wintertime until it had warmed up. Hey, I just realized something...I guess if my '79 NYer has acc, then if I turn the heat on immediately after starting the car, when it's cold, then it shouldn't come on, right?
Oh, I also double-checked in my '85 Consumer Guide, and acc was much more rare than I thought. You could get it in the LeSabre and Delta 88, but not the Caprice/Impala or Parisienne. You could also get it in the Regal, but oddly, not the Cutlass Supreme. I'm guessing then, that you couldn't get it in a Bonneville, Grand Prix, or Monte Carlo, but Consumer Guide didn't test those models.
Ford was a bit more progressive than GM, offering it in cars like the small Fox-based LTD and Marquis. At Ford it seems a/c was a $743 option, while acc was an $809 option. Judging from the cars that were tested for this Consumer Guide, it appears Chrysler didn't even offer acc in 1985. At least, it's not showing up as an option for the 1985 New Yorker. And if it were in any car, I'd imagine it would be offered in a New Yorker.
Lemko, if you're around...do you remember if your '85 Fifth Avenue had automatic Climate Control?
Those modules are insanely expensive. An acquaintence of mine had to replace the ACC module in her Buick Regal, and a reman module was $800!! That didn't include install either.
And - this is based on what I've read, plus my observations of unrestored, original GM cars from the 1950s and 1960s - moving up the GM ladder really did net the buyer a better level of quality control. A 1960s Oldsmobile and Buick, for example, really do look better built than a contemporary Chevrolet or Pontiac.
Interesting, because Consumer Reports had a different take on this issue. I looked at back issues some years ago, and in the early 50s, they said there were no appreciable differences in build quality among the various GM divisions (nor in long-term reliability either).
The only differences were longer wheelbase in the higher-line divisions (which mostly translated into better rear-seat legroom) and better interior materials quality, not that the materials were better put together or would last longer. Most of the rest was just more or fancier chrome and higher-powered engines. In some cases, the extra length went into rear overhang, so you got a bigger trunk but no more interior space.
By 1959-60, all GM cars (except the Corvair and Corvette) used essentially the same body, so CR's point was that it made eminent sense to buy a Chevy Bel Air six-cylinder (4-door sedan please) for its inherent value rather than spending more on what really was the same basic car underneath.
Of course, one has to realize that CR at that time was much more into automotive value than it is today, and on the whole, they were much more critical of cars then. They especially loathed the increasing size of cars and the horsepower race, at the expense of economy and ease of maintenance.
That's interesting, because it does seem to me that - by the 1960s anyway - there was a difference in workmanship among the various GM divisions. I can't speak to reliability, as a car can look great on the outside but have poor reliability (modern VWs, for example), or have sloppy workmanship but be anvil-tough (early 1970s Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart).
By the early 1970s, however, this difference among GM cars had pretty much vanished.
Of course, I'm going by the original cars I see at various auto shows (Carlisle events; Fall Hershey), which means I'm looking only at the outside.
At one of the Carlisle events Andre and I found a vendor who had some copies of Consumer Reports from the 1960s. We both wish that we had bought them. They make for interesting reading, as Consumer Reports bought cars directly from the dealer, and thus were not going to get a "ringer" that had been thoroughly prepped by the factory (read Jim Wangers book for the inside scoop on that trick!).
the more expensive GM cars seemed better built back in those days. Now going from something like a Chevy to a Pontiac, which were both on the "A" body back in the 50's, there probably wasn't a whole lot of difference. Although in 1957 my Consumer Guide book lists a base 1957 Chevy 150 2-door sedan at around 3200 lb, while a base 1957 Pontiac Chieftain 2-door sedan is around 3500. Now for that Chevy weight was actually the average of the 6 and the V-8. Interestingly the 6-cyl was the heavier of the two! Anyway, the Pontiac came standard with a V-8. And a Pontiac V-8 really isn't that much heavier than a Chevy V-8.
Now a Chieftain WAS on a longer wheelbase, 122" versus 115 for the Chevy. And the larger Superchiefs and Star Chiefs were on an even longer 124" wheelbase. So the longer frame added more weight. However, the body itself was the same size. At least, the passenger cabin part of it, so a Pontiac didn't get you any more interior room than a Chevy. What they did was add all that length to the trunk area. The rear axle would be further beyond the C-pillar and you'd have a longer trunk, but with much of that space far forward, where it was hard to get to.
Pontiacs did this in the 60's, too. That's one reason why a Bonneville from the early 60's seems to have such a long rear deck. There's about a foot more length back there, if not more, compared to a Chevy, but then it has the same-size passenger cabin as a Chevy.
Now Oldsmobiles and the Buick Century/Special, built on the B-body were definitely beefier, better-built cars. Even by '58, when the differences between the A- and B-bodies really diminished, the Buicks and Oldsmobiles just seemed beefier.
I think there was also a big difference in engine quality back then. The Chevy smallblock, for all its virtues, really was a cheap engine. Originally it was TOO lightweight, and fragile, so they had to use band-aid approaches to beef it back up. While it was lighter than the old Blue Flame 6, it was still heavier than it needed to be. Other engines, like the Buick NailHead and Olds Rocket, were just better-built from the get-go. They also used more nickle in the blocks, which made them stronger without necessarily making them heavier.
The Hydramatic tranny was also better built than the 2-speed PowerGlide. Now sure, a Powerglide could be beefed up and used for drag racing, just as a Chevy smallblock could be beefed up. But in stock form, they just weren't engineered to be as long-lived as Olds, Buick, or Pontiac components. Now Buick's Dynaflow tranny may have been troubleprone. IIRC it was overly complex, and tried too hard to be smooth, at a sacrifice of speed.
Consumer Reports did tend to be cheap back then, though, and it reflected in their reviews. If they had their way, we would have all been driving around in Rambler-sized 6-cylinder sedans that were stripped to the bare bones. They hated hardtops, musclecars, pony cars, personal luxury coupes, V-8 compacts, et al. I think a lot of their mentality was that a Chevy is good enough for you, so there's really no need to go to anything nicer. And in taking this "good enough" mentality, they just didn't appreciate what the bigger cars had to offer.
Now in the 60's, there could be some incredible overlap. For instance, once the Caprice came out, Chevy suddenly had a car with an interior close to what you could get in the Ninety-Eight, Electra, and Bonneville Brougham. Yet it stickered for less than a LeSabre. And in some of those years, when the LeSabre just had a 300 or 340 V-8 as the base, it really wasn't a step up, performance wise, from an Impala or Caprice with a 327 in the right setup. I think the tranny of the LeSabre hindered it a bit too, at least until those THM400s came out.
I think when the '65 models came out, the differences between the cars diminished, but it still seems to me that an Olds or Buick was better built than a Chevy. And even a Pontiac was a bit better, as well. I do remember though, that Consumer Reports usually found more defects in their test Pontiacs than other cars, though. And usually when they'd test a Catalina, an Impala was in that same test.
Your plan for recovery of GM is build more boring cars? Hummm, they can do that. Selling them for a profit, an impossibility. The new Impala is looking pretty good. Sort of like an Accord on steroids. You get a V6 for the price of a 4 banger Accord. Well perhaps not, depending on when you sell or trade the car in. Noticed that the car sits really high for some reason. Sort of looks like it should be a four wheel drive off road vehicle. Oh well, all in all, it looked better than the other Chevy cars in the passenger line. Was looking at the Fusion the same day, and it seemed to have a little more eye candy to it. Not bad. Just seems to me like both cars are in a crowded segment, with Japan and Korea taking large bits of the pie each year.
The way to win, I still believe is to side step this fight and develop new segments, and excitement for buying into that segment. Chevy is not going to build the better Civic, and even if they did, that pie is cut into too many pieces. Cadillac sold some CTS cars which were a bit different that what is offered by BMW and Japan makes. The Chrysler 300 is very much different than the rest. What was the winner for GM/Ford was the SUV. Japan and Korea did not have the big part of that pie, and America was the leader. Same goes for cars big and small. Mustangs sell well, but the Probe never did sell as well. Probe was yet another FWD car and got lost in the lot.
The unique product is their only hope. Unique doesn't mean all retro, or all muscle cars, though some may fall into this category.
The Oldsmobile auto-climate system was semi-automatic with the fan speeds manual. Chrysler does not show an automatic system for the 85 model year in my Edmund's price guide.
Top of the line Bonneville's were about $35 to $40 thousand, more than the GTO. Grand Prix's are probably about $30,000. The GTO is not an M-class vehicle, and I have never suggested that it is. I think the GTO's used price is holding up quite well, better than most GM cars.
I do not think that they expected the GTO to put GM into the "black" all by itself. Lutz thought that the Monaro would be a good "muscle car" for the US market. Holden had some capacity to build a few for the US market. The Solstice is a much better car for image than the Monaro is. The Monaro's that are on the streets are nearly invisible and look like any other generic Pontiac. A Solstice is clearly a sports car and will get attention.
Top of the line Bonneville's were about $35 to $40 thousand, more than the GTO. Grand Prix's are probably about $30,000.
You might be right, but are you sure that Bonnevilles were really selling at anywhere in that price range? I would guess that between fleet sales and rebates that they were selling at nowhere near that price.
I think the GTO's used price is holding up quite well, better than most GM cars.
That might be true as compared to GM products -- as a limited production import, I could see this being the case -- but compared to non-GM products, I'd have to wonder about this. I'd be interested to see a comparison of numbers between the GTO and other automakers to see how well it's doing.
The Solstice is a much better car for image than the Monaro is. The Monaro's that are on the streets are nearly invisible and look like any other generic Pontiac. A Solstice is clearly a sports car and will get attention.
Bang on right. If this car proves to be a good reliable daily driver that's fun and holds up to use, this could be a definitive step toward reviving the Pontiac nameplate. If it fails, it might be the nail in the coffin.
I believe it did. The only car I remember had that had A/C without ACC was my 1987 Chevrolet Caprice. Chrysler had their own air conditioning division back in the day called Airtemp. My 1975 Cadillac DeVille had a system made by Frigidaire. My 1989 Cadillac's system is made by Harrison.
Unfortunately, there is such a huge disconnect between the Solstice, which is quite fresh, and the all the rest, the visit to the dealer may be very short lived. The G6 coupe is sorta interesting. If they dropped the electric assist steering, and go with the one like in the GTP, while selling it around $20K - $21K range with a 3.6V6, it may be of some interest to me.
You think the '69 Camaro looked awkward??? That is the first, and I am sure the last time I will ever here that car called anything else but awesome. Absolutely one of the finest cars to come out of America looks wise. That said, some I am sure have differing opinions, which is fine.
Personally, I like all years Camaro, though the third generation was not one noted for build quality. All years look great, with the third generation look coming off looking better in the Firebird body with fold down lights. A '94 Camaro looks sharp.
The New Camaro, in the retro concept looks cool to be. I just hope the size, weight and cost do not get out of hand. A 3.5 or better yet 3.6 V6 Camaro in the 3,200# range, would be cool. Price it around $21K.
"I think that it is Toyota that is eating GM's lunch, not BMW." reply: That's certainly true, that's why I don't get those posts that even bring up BMW here. When I read the Cadillac is going to take a serious chunk of BMW's business it's truely laughable. GM has spent the last decade with each division going after each other for the same buyer.Untill they fix this(and they can't,it's GM's corporate philosophy)the mention of taking sales away from BMW,Toyota, or Honda or even Dodge is ludicrus. Bill C.,
For me the old 1969 Camaro looks great still today. I think its popularity may be due to the fact that it was a unique one year only styling. After 1969 , GM choose to keep the Camaro the same for too many years , simply grafting on a new fiberglass "face" that looked like something J.C.Whitney would sell as a after market trashy paste-over kit. The Camaro became a marketing parady of what it once was, but then so did the Mustang. Maybe Chrysler was smart to give up on the Challenger/Barracuda when it did? I'm not so sure there's going to be enough of a comeback to support all the new and proposed 'pony cars.' Should the Camaro succeed, it will have a Firebird to compete with itself in 2 years , Just as Soltice will have the Saturn Sky taking sales from it. It's pure GM logic and it worked for years with only Ford and Chrysler as competitors. If something is a hit , give it to the other divisions so all the managers could share in the success when it was time for the yearly bonus. Over the years it's a miracle that Pontiac didn't get a version of the Vette. It was discussed more than once. Now they are using the Vette chassis for a Cadillac, so nothing is sacred. They had to do it. The Allante failed, the Catera failed, and lets agree to forget about the Cimarron? Bill C.
Now the question is would ya'll give up that solid feel of the current GTO, for weight savings ???? I personally like the handling of the GTO. Yeah it might not put up records for road racing, but I'm sure it could carve it's way through the Rockies. BTW- before ya'll tear apart the GTO, it's a more livable daily driver (comfort) than the Stang in my opinion.
Rocky
P.S. Gosh gone for 4 days and look at what I missed.
Well it appears that Holden sedan racing has been going on for years in Australia. So the answer is yes, they race'em. And they have wins with them.
Anyone seen the Consumer Reports Auto for 2006 on the stands yet? Just how reliable are all these new cars? Wonder how the New Stang compares to the previous run in reliability? Maybe the Holden won't even be in the Consumer Reports - some lower numbered runs are not surveyed.
FYI, Holden and Ford have a rivalry in Australia and New Zealand that is very similar to the Chevy-Ford rivalry here. Performance versions of the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore sedans have small-block V8's and the usual suspects tuning and modding the cars in the aftermarket, as you might expect. They have their crowd that likes its muscle cars, too.
Holden Commodore a.k.a. "G8" appears to be a nice car. HOWEVER nice isn't enough !!!! This car needs technology if it wants to win customers from BMW, Lexus, Acura.
Rocky
P.S. When is the TL Type-S coming out ????
I was told when I baught mine, it would be out in 07'.
socala4, in all seriousness the TL was the best car I ever owned. The Big 2.5 don't have a comparable offering and I will be :mad: if the G8 doesn't come packed with technology. It was really too bad that Honda and I got off on the wrong foot and me losing the car over a "drafting company" something I wasn't expecting, and got the run around from various managers that "I'm going to fix it" :sick: I'm still dealing with this issue. :mad:
DETROIT -- Some members of Delphi Corp.'s second-largest union have voted to authorize a strike if a bankruptcy judge decides to cancel the auto supplier's labor contracts, a union representative said Friday.
A local branch of the International Union of Electrical Workers-Communications Workers of America voted unanimously to authorize a strike, Local 755 Chairman Keith Bailey said. Local 755 represents 1,050 workers at a Delphi suspension parts plant in Kettering, Ohio.
"It's the first time the membership as a whole was heard, and it was heard unanimously that if you take 60 percent of my wages and you take my health care so I can't take care of my family and you take away my pension, we'll strike you," Bailey said. "How many people are going to care about Delphi when their homes are being foreclosed?"
Bailey, a 33-year veteran of the company, said workers have made sacrifices, such as a four-year wage and benefit freeze in the late 1990s, and have improved plant productivity.
"They've just taken the savings and built plants overseas," Bailey said.
The IUE-CWA, which represents 25 percent of Delphi's 34,000 hourly workers, told local unions two weeks ago that they could begin holding votes to authorize a strike, spokeswoman Lauren Asplen said. The union hasn't set a deadline when voting must be completed.
IUE Local 717 in Warren, Ohio, which is holding a rally for Delphi workers this weekend, said it plans to hold a strike vote March 12.
A Delphi spokeswoman said Friday that the company won't comment on the votes.
Asplen said the votes don't mean the union will strike, but they leave the option open while the union continues to negotiate with Delphi. The Troy-based company, which filed for bankruptcy in October, wants its unions to agree to lower wages and benefits.
"We're not taking any possible action off the table," Asplen said. "We need to be prepared."
A prolonged strike against Delphi, the nation's largest auto supplier, could devastate the company and its largest customer, General Motors Corp., which already is reeling from falling U.S. sales and its own high labor costs.
But a strike isn't imminent. Unions can't strike under Delphi's current contracts, which will remain in effect unless a bankruptcy court judge throws them out.
Delphi has threatened to ask a judge to void its contracts on March 31 if it fails to reach an agreement with GM and its unions to lower its labor costs. If Delphi files a motion on that date, a hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 8. The judge would then decide within 30 days whether to cancel the contracts.
So far, the IUE-CWA is the only one of Delphi's six unions to go ahead with strike authorization votes.
The United Auto Workers, which represents the vast majority of Delphi's hourly workers, hasn't scheduled a vote, spokesman Roger Kerson said Thursday, although UAW leaders have threatened to strike if the contracts are canceled.
The United Steelworkers, which represents 1,000 Delphi workers, said it's too early to conduct a strike vote, spokesman Wayne Ranick said. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- which represent around 186 workers combined -- also haven't scheduled votes, according to officials at those unions.
Delphi's situation is similar to that of Tower Automotive Inc., a supplier based in Novi. Hourly workers at Tower voted in January to authorize a strike if a bankruptcy court judge grants Tower's request to cancel its labor agreements. The judge is scheduled to consider Tower's request Monday.
That's where GM and Delphi need to go......They both need to diversify their portfolios. Delphi was on the right track with diversification. GM used to make the best refridgerators and many are still alive and kicking. I'd love to have a old school GM refridge.
Gee, wish I'd known that 4 years ago. We had a red one that was built for only one year for 1976 Bicentennial Celebration that was put in out home when it was built. Had diskwasher and dropin stove in same color.
well buddy, could I interest you in a nice vintage Chrysler Airtemp house window a/c? I have no idea how old the sucker is, but I think I'm going to retire it this year. Actually works fine, but I'm sure it draws a helluva lot more juice than the newer window shakers! And I've heard rumors that electric for our area is going up by 40-80% this summer. :surprise:
My grandparents remodeled their kitchen in 1969. Avocado must've been the "in" color that year. Their old Norge was still running fine, although it got relegated to garage duty back in 1994. I finally donated it in 2004, and it was still running great, just ugly as sin, and NOT frost free! And heck, the paint had less orange peel on it than most modern cars do. Maybe GM should contract out to Norge to paint their cars? :shades:
That is true but it doesn't change anything on the fact that it 1) killes the resale value 2) brings little profit to the dealers and GM 3) signals that they cannot sell them for a reasonable price.
I completely agree with the internal GM competition.. it is so ridiculous... Sky is already hurting Solstice and it is not even out yet...
Ford was smart not to introduce any internal competition to Mustang (possibly they are working on a 4door RWD Mercury to be released with next gen Mustang).. but Ford took it a little too far, not allowing top level focus to even think about being as fast and as cheap as Mustang... it hurt the Focus quite a bit, despite the fact that most people that shop for Focus would not even look at a Mustang and definitely vice versa... but Ford went that way since they introduced the 04 'Stang..
I guess there is a balance in having somewhat overlapping offers that do not fight, just complement eahc other.
Avocado definately was the "in" color back in 1969. My basement bathroom fixtures were put in that year and are all avocado green. My paternal grandfather had a white Philco, (built by Ford) refrigerator from the 1940s that was still going strong in the 1980s. Nash and late AMC manufactured refrigerators under the Kelvinator badge. Crosley built refrigerators and radios before it got into cars.
Comments
As niche products that feed minimal demand, performance cars often serve the purpose of bringing glory, excitement and positive attention to the nameplate. Sometimes, earning profits from the car can be secondary, just so long as it builds the nameplate's image and helps to sell other cars by creating some magic for the overall brand.
The GTO didn't sell in large numbers or meet even modest expectations, so I doubt that it was profitable. But did it help the Pontiac nameplate build any credibility, excitement or mystique?
I don't know for sure, but my guess is "no". The car suffers from the typically bad grilles of the Pontiac line (a pretty poor corporate face, IMO), is fairly innocuous otherwise, and doesn't bring back the glories of the old car, nor particularly resonate with the public. The car was basically invisible, and it's a fair bet that resale will be pretty awful, a sign of a lack of popularity or demand.
So what was the point? At this juncture, every failure or mediocre car just serves to undermine an already fragile nameplate. The nameplate needs some hits -- the Solstice is a potentially fine start, but whether that's enough is hard to say.
A VERY pertinent point. Some savings would be realized immediately from shutting down a division, and more over time. Ten years out, closing Olds will have been one of the smartest things they did this decade.
If you are losing billions anyway, why not spend one of those billions closing down Buick? Turn the Enclave into a Chevy before it ever even wears a Buick badge. Cancel the LaCrosse - that wasn't much of an update anyway, certainly not as expensive as an all-new model usually is. Call the Lucerne a Chevy (or give it a better suspension and larger rims and tires and call it a Pontiac), kill all the other Buicks you were about to kill anyway, and you are done. Well, pay off the 20% of dealers who are not combo P-B-GMC dealers already, and THEN you are done! :-)
andre: with your prose style, you should write books.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think that one thing that GM must do is make low priced platforms for Chevy and Pontiac. Medium priced platforms that are used at Buick and possibly Cadillac or possibly Pontiac, but not both. The Enclave will actually go into production for other divisions before Buick gets one.
When Oldsmobile was still in business, they had several models in production while Buick had three, all cars. Buick was outselling Oldsmobile, even though Olds had 4 lines of cars, a minivan and a truck.
Holden probably made money on the GTO. It was one of several clones of the Monaro sold in various markets.
I would agree that Pontiac's styling is poor and the GTO is not a looker. The Solstice is a much better car to draw people into Pontiac showrooms.
I think that GM might do better if they scale back operations to a level of production capacity of about 3 million vehicles for the US market. This would mean dumping Buick, Pontiac and GMC along with the dealers.
read page two: the GTO is more european in feel...
To put it another way, the latest plan that has them downsized 25% or so by 2012 may still not meet the goal of eliminating overcapacity. It depends on if GM can turn around their huge decline in popularity in the next few years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-------
...only in comparison to the Dodge Charger.
Compare the GTO to a BMW/Mercedes/Audi-VW and the story changes.
Changes dramatically.
:P
Perhaps we can both do a bit of other research, but a couple of points:
-The value isn't too helpful if you don't know the percentage of depreciation loss. If the GTO had a higher price tag to begin with, then I would expect its dollar value to be higher than another car that was less costly when it was new.
-If you're going to compare the GTO with the M5, etc., then compare the amount and percentage of depreciation with those same cars. I don't know for sure, but in relative terms, I would guess that the M5, M3, etc. would have held their values substantially better than the GTO. As is true with most "American" cars, residuals are often pretty poor. Residuals effectively reflect the marketplace voting with its dollars, and I have my doubts that the marketplace thought too highly of the car as compared to its competitors.
Actually I was commenting about the marketers and designers more than the buyers. The market is there and ready to buy, it's the company's job to decipher it and produce product that will meet the demand, fill the plants and make a profit.
Who agreed to bring a model here that might sell 18000 units!!! then fail at it. GM/F/CofD are in a world of hurts now. They don't need T-birds, Chargers and GTO's. They need Fusions, more Fusions, Focus' that light up the compact segment, a new 300 and a GM winner of some kind. They have to fill 1 Million units of factory space - each - just with autos. Trucks and SUV's are stable and profitable. But if they want to increase their auto presence it can't be to a narrow segment like muscle cars.
OK when they recover and money is flowing in these are cherries to be added to increase profit ( see FJ Cruiser (. But to base your company's hopes to avoid BK on an 18K unit GTO.... then fail to sell that many!!! God!!!
In the past 5 months how many different stories have floated out of detroit as to the GTO's fate? It's on , it's off, photo's of a face lift, a new platform. Now it's official, it's dead. Do those GM diehards still not see the problem that is still alive and well within the GM corporate walls, or is it still your position that it's the unions, the japanese, etc,etc.? GM products are still too much alike,still all going for the same customer, and like it or not stuck with the well earned immage of airport rent-a-cars.
Those posters who see GM taking share from the likes of BMW are so out of touch that they might as well consider themselves part of the GM problem rather that any solution.
Bill C.
The only car I ever had with acc was my Grandma's '85 LeSabre, and admittedly even with that I was constantly playing around with the temperature settings. It was nice though, to have it not blow any air in the wintertime until it had warmed up. Hey, I just realized something...I guess if my '79 NYer has acc, then if I turn the heat on immediately after starting the car, when it's cold, then it shouldn't come on, right?
Oh, I also double-checked in my '85 Consumer Guide, and acc was much more rare than I thought. You could get it in the LeSabre and Delta 88, but not the Caprice/Impala or Parisienne. You could also get it in the Regal, but oddly, not the Cutlass Supreme. I'm guessing then, that you couldn't get it in a Bonneville, Grand Prix, or Monte Carlo, but Consumer Guide didn't test those models.
Ford was a bit more progressive than GM, offering it in cars like the small Fox-based LTD and Marquis. At Ford it seems a/c was a $743 option, while acc was an $809 option. Judging from the cars that were tested for this Consumer Guide, it appears Chrysler didn't even offer acc in 1985. At least, it's not showing up as an option for the 1985 New Yorker. And if it were in any car, I'd imagine it would be offered in a New Yorker.
Lemko, if you're around...do you remember if your '85 Fifth Avenue had automatic Climate Control?
Interesting, because Consumer Reports had a different take on this issue. I looked at back issues some years ago, and in the early 50s, they said there were no appreciable differences in build quality among the various GM divisions (nor in long-term reliability either).
The only differences were longer wheelbase in the higher-line divisions (which mostly translated into better rear-seat legroom) and better interior materials quality, not that the materials were better put together or would last longer. Most of the rest was just more or fancier chrome and higher-powered engines. In some cases, the extra length went into rear overhang, so you got a bigger trunk but no more interior space.
By 1959-60, all GM cars (except the Corvair and Corvette) used essentially the same body, so CR's point was that it made eminent sense to buy a Chevy Bel Air six-cylinder (4-door sedan please) for its inherent value rather than spending more on what really was the same basic car underneath.
Of course, one has to realize that CR at that time was much more into automotive value than it is today, and on the whole, they were much more critical of cars then. They especially loathed the increasing size of cars and the horsepower race, at the expense of economy and ease of maintenance.
By the early 1970s, however, this difference among GM cars had pretty much vanished.
Of course, I'm going by the original cars I see at various auto shows (Carlisle events; Fall Hershey), which means I'm looking only at the outside.
At one of the Carlisle events Andre and I found a vendor who had some copies of Consumer Reports from the 1960s. We both wish that we had bought them. They make for interesting reading, as Consumer Reports bought cars directly from the dealer, and thus were not going to get a "ringer" that had been thoroughly prepped by the factory (read Jim Wangers book for the inside scoop on that trick!).
Now a Chieftain WAS on a longer wheelbase, 122" versus 115 for the Chevy. And the larger Superchiefs and Star Chiefs were on an even longer 124" wheelbase. So the longer frame added more weight. However, the body itself was the same size. At least, the passenger cabin part of it, so a Pontiac didn't get you any more interior room than a Chevy. What they did was add all that length to the trunk area. The rear axle would be further beyond the C-pillar and you'd have a longer trunk, but with much of that space far forward, where it was hard to get to.
Pontiacs did this in the 60's, too. That's one reason why a Bonneville from the early 60's seems to have such a long rear deck. There's about a foot more length back there, if not more, compared to a Chevy, but then it has the same-size passenger cabin as a Chevy.
Now Oldsmobiles and the Buick Century/Special, built on the B-body were definitely beefier, better-built cars. Even by '58, when the differences between the A- and B-bodies really diminished, the Buicks and Oldsmobiles just seemed beefier.
I think there was also a big difference in engine quality back then. The Chevy smallblock, for all its virtues, really was a cheap engine. Originally it was TOO lightweight, and fragile, so they had to use band-aid approaches to beef it back up. While it was lighter than the old Blue Flame 6, it was still heavier than it needed to be. Other engines, like the Buick NailHead and Olds Rocket, were just better-built from the get-go. They also used more nickle in the blocks, which made them stronger without necessarily making them heavier.
The Hydramatic tranny was also better built than the 2-speed PowerGlide. Now sure, a Powerglide could be beefed up and used for drag racing, just as a Chevy smallblock could be beefed up. But in stock form, they just weren't engineered to be as long-lived as Olds, Buick, or Pontiac components. Now Buick's Dynaflow tranny may have been troubleprone. IIRC it was overly complex, and tried too hard to be smooth, at a sacrifice of speed.
Consumer Reports did tend to be cheap back then, though, and it reflected in their reviews. If they had their way, we would have all been driving around in Rambler-sized 6-cylinder sedans that were stripped to the bare bones. They hated hardtops, musclecars, pony cars, personal luxury coupes, V-8 compacts, et al. I think a lot of their mentality was that a Chevy is good enough for you, so there's really no need to go to anything nicer. And in taking this "good enough" mentality, they just didn't appreciate what the bigger cars had to offer.
Now in the 60's, there could be some incredible overlap. For instance, once the Caprice came out, Chevy suddenly had a car with an interior close to what you could get in the Ninety-Eight, Electra, and Bonneville Brougham. Yet it stickered for less than a LeSabre. And in some of those years, when the LeSabre just had a 300 or 340 V-8 as the base, it really wasn't a step up, performance wise, from an Impala or Caprice with a 327 in the right setup. I think the tranny of the LeSabre hindered it a bit too, at least until those THM400s came out.
I think when the '65 models came out, the differences between the cars diminished, but it still seems to me that an Olds or Buick was better built than a Chevy. And even a Pontiac was a bit better, as well. I do remember though, that Consumer Reports usually found more defects in their test Pontiacs than other cars, though. And usually when they'd test a Catalina, an Impala was in that same test.
The way to win, I still believe is to side step this fight and develop new segments, and excitement for buying into that segment. Chevy is not going to build the better Civic, and even if they did, that pie is cut into too many pieces. Cadillac sold some CTS cars which were a bit different that what is offered by BMW and Japan makes. The Chrysler 300 is very much different than the rest. What was the winner for GM/Ford was the SUV. Japan and Korea did not have the big part of that pie, and America was the leader. Same goes for cars big and small. Mustangs sell well, but the Probe never did sell as well.
Probe was yet another FWD car and got lost in the lot.
The unique product is their only hope. Unique doesn't mean all retro, or all muscle cars, though some may fall into this category.
Loren
You might be right, but are you sure that Bonnevilles were really selling at anywhere in that price range? I would guess that between fleet sales and rebates that they were selling at nowhere near that price.
I think the GTO's used price is holding up quite well, better than most GM cars.
That might be true as compared to GM products -- as a limited production import, I could see this being the case -- but compared to non-GM products, I'd have to wonder about this. I'd be interested to see a comparison of numbers between the GTO and other automakers to see how well it's doing.
Bang on right. If this car proves to be a good reliable daily driver that's fun and holds up to use, this could be a definitive step toward reviving the Pontiac nameplate. If it fails, it might be the nail in the coffin.
The 2004 GTO is about $22,500; $32,000 new.
loren
Personally, I like all years Camaro, though the third generation was not one noted for build quality. All years look great, with the third generation look coming off looking better in the Firebird body with fold down lights. A '94 Camaro looks sharp.
The New Camaro, in the retro concept looks cool to be. I just hope the size, weight and cost do not get out of hand.
A 3.5 or better yet 3.6 V6 Camaro in the 3,200# range, would be cool. Price it around $21K.
Loren
reply:
That's certainly true, that's why I don't get those posts that even bring up BMW here. When I read the Cadillac is going to take a serious chunk of BMW's business it's truely laughable. GM has spent the last decade with each division going after each other for the same buyer.Untill they fix this(and they can't,it's GM's corporate philosophy)the mention of taking sales away from BMW,Toyota, or Honda or even Dodge is ludicrus. Bill C.,
Rocky
P.S. Gosh gone for 4 days and look at what I missed.
Anyone seen the Consumer Reports Auto for 2006 on the stands yet? Just how reliable are all these new cars? Wonder how the New Stang compares to the previous run in reliability? Maybe the Holden won't even be in the Consumer Reports - some lower numbered runs are not surveyed.
Loren
Rocky
P.S. When is the TL Type-S coming out ????
I was told when I baught mine, it would be out in 07'.
socala4, in all seriousness the TL was the best car I ever owned. The Big 2.5 don't have a comparable offering and I will be :mad:
A local branch of the International Union of Electrical Workers-Communications Workers of America voted unanimously to authorize a strike, Local 755 Chairman Keith Bailey said. Local 755 represents 1,050 workers at a Delphi suspension parts plant in Kettering, Ohio.
"It's the first time the membership as a whole was heard, and it was heard unanimously that if you take 60 percent of my wages and you take my health care so I can't take care of my family and you take away my pension, we'll strike you," Bailey said. "How many people are going to care about Delphi when their homes are being foreclosed?"
Bailey, a 33-year veteran of the company, said workers have made sacrifices, such as a four-year wage and benefit freeze in the late 1990s, and have improved plant productivity.
"They've just taken the savings and built plants overseas," Bailey said.
The IUE-CWA, which represents 25 percent of Delphi's 34,000 hourly workers, told local unions two weeks ago that they could begin holding votes to authorize a strike, spokeswoman Lauren Asplen said. The union hasn't set a deadline when voting must be completed.
IUE Local 717 in Warren, Ohio, which is holding a rally for Delphi workers this weekend, said it plans to hold a strike vote March 12.
A Delphi spokeswoman said Friday that the company won't comment on the votes.
Asplen said the votes don't mean the union will strike, but they leave the option open while the union continues to negotiate with Delphi. The Troy-based company, which filed for bankruptcy in October, wants its unions to agree to lower wages and benefits.
"We're not taking any possible action off the table," Asplen said. "We need to be prepared."
A prolonged strike against Delphi, the nation's largest auto supplier, could devastate the company and its largest customer, General Motors Corp., which already is reeling from falling U.S. sales and its own high labor costs.
But a strike isn't imminent. Unions can't strike under Delphi's current contracts, which will remain in effect unless a bankruptcy court judge throws them out.
Delphi has threatened to ask a judge to void its contracts on March 31 if it fails to reach an agreement with GM and its unions to lower its labor costs. If Delphi files a motion on that date, a hearing on the motion is scheduled for May 8. The judge would then decide within 30 days whether to cancel the contracts.
So far, the IUE-CWA is the only one of Delphi's six unions to go ahead with strike authorization votes.
The United Auto Workers, which represents the vast majority of Delphi's hourly workers, hasn't scheduled a vote, spokesman Roger Kerson said Thursday, although UAW leaders have threatened to strike if the contracts are canceled.
The United Steelworkers, which represents 1,000 Delphi workers, said it's too early to conduct a strike vote, spokesman Wayne Ranick said. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- which represent around 186 workers combined -- also haven't scheduled votes, according to officials at those unions.
Delphi's situation is similar to that of Tower Automotive Inc., a supplier based in Novi. Hourly workers at Tower voted in January to authorize a strike if a bankruptcy court judge grants Tower's request to cancel its labor agreements. The judge is scheduled to consider Tower's request Monday.
Rocky
It was percolating fine. Replaced it with bisque.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My grandparents remodeled their kitchen in 1969. Avocado must've been the "in" color that year. Their old Norge was still running fine, although it got relegated to garage duty back in 1994. I finally donated it in 2004, and it was still running great, just ugly as sin, and NOT frost free! And heck, the paint had less orange peel on it than most modern cars do. Maybe GM should contract out to Norge to paint their cars? :shades:
2) brings little profit to the dealers and GM
3) signals that they cannot sell them for a reasonable price.
Igor
Ford was smart not to introduce any internal competition to Mustang (possibly they are working on a 4door RWD Mercury to be released with next gen Mustang).. but Ford took it a little too far, not allowing top level focus to even think about being as fast and as cheap as Mustang... it hurt the Focus quite a bit, despite the fact that most people that shop for Focus would not even look at a Mustang and definitely vice versa... but Ford went that way since they introduced the 04 'Stang..
I guess there is a balance in having somewhat overlapping offers that do not fight, just complement eahc other.
Igor