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
Bill
A string of popular new products helped General Motors Corp. eke out a sales gain last month while the rest of the U.S. auto industry faltered, an early indication that the automaker's design revival is producing results.
GM managed a 2.6 percent sales gain last month even as every other major automaker posted declines. Sales were down 4.3 percent for the industry as a whole as jittery consumers stayed out of showrooms
GM gained a percentage point of market share in January compared to December, up to 24 percent, according to Autodata Corp.
Consumers are demanding GM products, said Jessica Caldwell, industry analyst at Edmunds.com, an automotive information site.
"They've slowly been increasing momentum since late summer 2007 and they finally hit their stride with some products, like Malibu," she said.
That 2.6% gain includes another large drop in fleet sales.
GM posted a retail-sales gain of 11% in January. Retail truck sales were only up 1.7%, but the automaker posted a 31% surge in retail car sales.
So GM actually increased 11% in total retail and 31% in car retail compared to a 2% primarily retail drop at Toyota. And a large sales surge in the new Toyota truck helped keep the Toyota make from even looking worse.
GM's sales results were so strong that the automaker ended the month with the lowest dealer inventories since 1983
Sales were down 12.1% at Chrysler LLC, 7.3% at Nissan, 3.9% at Ford Motor Co. and 2.3% at both Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.
There was an increase in incentives to help the above. Bottom line is that GM is starting well in 2008 and with low dealer inventories and some great new products is setting up to have a decent year in a year that looks pretty bad. Time will tell though.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
62vettefp: How much of a problem is it to design the manual transmissions into the newer cars? Is it a great increase in cost for design/engineering? for production on the line? A few people who want a manual seem disapointed that they're not being offered in the newer models while some of the foreign brands still have manual. Is it not cost effective?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Probably the one that most forget is the certification. You have more powertrains to certify for emissions and some of the safety crash testing. This can cost big money and is not worth it to the bottom line for the small percentage of buyers in certain segments. I do agree it would be good for GM's image to build a few more sticks. I am surprized the G8 does not have one but then again it is not even out yet so I wonder if it might.
But again it so small a percentage that it is tough to build a business case around a low volume vehicle. To me the Epsilons would be case where the G6 would have one.
Remember that some of the vehicles that do have sticks and sold by the imports have huge numbers of sticks built for other countries and therefore more economical. With global architectures that may allow GM to build more sticks. I would think the new epsilon II's would be a good case of this.
The Malibu is slower, smaller, less fuel efficient car with poor reputation of reliability.
@slower:
"At least once you coax either engine into full acceleration you'll be treated to a more-than-adequate display of power, rendering the Honda's 16 extra horses something of a moot point."
@smaller:
"the mathematical difference between the Accord and Malibu isn't extreme" yet it does say "The Malibu, however, is rather understated. Its longer wheelbase makes the car look sleeker" but "the Honda screams for attention in the same way the first and worst Korean cars did"
@less fuel efficient
"(the Accord has) what Honda calls Variable Cylinder Management. This technology is designed to boost fuel economy by allowing the six-cylinder engine to run on just three or four cylinders when full power isn't needed. It works almost seamlessly, but in this case, "almost" isn't good enough. During highway driving with the cruise control on I could feel a slight vibration when the engine switched from three- to four- to six-cylinder mode, which it does often, a downright maddening behavior. That the Accord managed only 22 miles per gallon during my testing, a single mile per gallon better than the Malibu, only made this all the more annoying. "
With driving at 15,000miles/yr and gas at $3.00 that amounts to $8.00/month. Big whoop.
...and I don't see anything to 'sum up' about reliability...it's not mentioned. The platform, engines, and transmission are proven, though, so I'm not sure where that's coming from :confuse:
rendering the Honda's 16 extra horses something of a moot point.
in author's subjective opinion. Accord is faster in instrumented tests elsewhere.
In four cylinder trim the difference in 20hp, and you get GM's 4 speed auto too.
@smaller:
The Malibu, however, is rather understated
Its longer wheelbase makes the car look sleeker
A typical family car buyer cares rat's [non-permissible content removed] about sleeker looks. Accord can seat three adults in the back in comfort, Malibu can't because it is at least 2 in less in each shoulder and hip room. Yet is manages to be heavier than Accord.
@less fuel efficient:
Considering that Malibu is a smaller car with slower performance only exacerbates GM's powertrain ineffeciency.
You can look at reliability statics of 5 year old Malibu and Accord to know how they will hold up in the long run.
If you look around for Aura, you will see plenty of problems. Unless they can come with a track record of a good part of a decade, not too many people are going to spend their hard earned money on a manufacturer tethering on the brink of bankruptcy. Koreans seem to a safer bet at the moment.
The author's point is that you may experience performance differences on the track, but nobody will be able to observe them in real life. I think that is a valid argument. PS-IIRC, the 6-speed will be available with the 4-cyl later in '08
@smaller:
I disagree about style not mattering. I think it's more that the family-minded consumer prioritizes reliability and quality over style. When an entry has all three (the Malibu) it will become more appealing than one with only two (Accord). The Accord is a fullsize car. It should be able to hold 3 adults across the back seat.
@less fuel efficient:
It's not that much smaller. There is no noticable performance difference. Hence, there is no exacerbation of the powertrain ineffeciency. It's $8/month. Period.
I posted this article in this particular forum because of the authors attitude toward the two car manufacturers, not to argue the merits of two specific cars. He suggests that GM is on the rise (the Malibu "represents an upward trajectory for Chevrolet") and Honda is falling (adds accord to list of "ill-conceived models" like the Element, Ridgeline, and Accord hybrid). That's what's so interesting. So, hopefully GM will succeed if the media continues to give its cars such positive reviews.
Umm...an import fanboy who is nitpicking on little things and dismissing the fact that what seems to be most important is that GM is finally starting to give the imports some serious competition.
Case in point: GM's sales were up in 1/08, while everybody else saw sales declines.
Most of the auto experts seem to believe that the Accord is still king of the hill in this category. I won't dispute this. But the fact is, they ALL are really impressed with the General's effort here, with ALL seeming to agree that the Malibu has leapfrogged the Camry with it's all around effort.
With the word "Camcord" being bantied around here to note both models as the benchmark in this category, it seems as though the new word: "Camcordibu" is now most appropriate, as it seems as if the buying public now has another choice to consider. And if,by chance, the Malibu's reliability issues are now insignificant as compared with other '08 and future models, then it's presumably better styling will eventually win over neutral parties.
The new Accord sales are down. The styling is not resonating with the public.
IMO, one month does not make a trend.
That's good news for GM. The styling is probably why. I know C&D said the Accord was still king overall, but lets face it, people still do buy what they are attracted to. GM has some hits on their hand, and the imports have to deal with it. If the car impresses the masses so much that any perceived advantage in reliability is willing to be overlooked, then GM wins. The question now becomes can they keep them coming back in years to come. I believe they will. The General's willingness to take chances in styling has always been there. Whether you speak of a hit like the original Riviera, or the flop known as the Aztek, vanilla isn't the mainstay of the menu. I think when people get in the Malibu and drive it for a few years, they will see that the reliability isn't as bad as they may have remembered from years gone by.
IMO, one month does not make a trend.
I actually do not know. I read an article that said the 2008 Accord sales were down. In googleing I see Accord was up thru October of '07.
I did find that Honda was up 7% in car sales and trucks down 9% in January. And while Honda car sales were up 7% the new Accord was down 7%.
In December Honda car sales were up 14% while the Accord was up 5%
In November Honda car sales were up 10% while the Accord was up 25%.
It is normal for a brand new vehicle to have up sales when it is first introduced and continue through the first year. The Accord does show a very good initial upkick but the sales of the new vehicle is on a downward trend and this is not normal for a new car. Something is up. Perhaps there is a shortage of vehicles. Perhaps the buyers are finding it is too large and are buying the Civic.
:shades:
Chevrolet:
Impala: The new Malibu makes this car look cheap in comparison. Chevrolet needs to work the same magic to this car as they did the Malibu
Cobalt: Love the coupe! I wish they used those taillights on the sedan. The car still needs a lot of work on the interior to be up to the standards of the Civic and Corolla.
Malibu: Finally a car that can compete head-on with both the Camry and Accord.
Aveo: Surprisingly roomy little car with a decent interior for its price point.
Corvette: Nice! Consistently the nicest car Chevrolet builds.
Saturn:
Aura: Can't decide which is nicer, the Aura or the Malibu. Can't believe this car doesn't sell better than it does
Sky: Beautiful mini-Vette. I like it better than the Solstice.
Astra: Unmolested European Opel built in Belgium with parts sourced from Hungary and Poland. A little TOO European for my tastes.
Pontiac:
G5: Prettier Cobalt.
G6: The coupe reminds me of the Camry Solara. Cool hardtop convertible.
G8: On display on a turntable. Couldn't get a good look at it. Looks promising. Other than that, not much excitement at Pontiac. They need to bring back the Trans Am.
Solstice: Cute little sports roadster. It definately one-ups the Miata. Like the Saturn Sky better.
Torrent: I like it better than the Equinox.
Buick:
Enclave: A Quantum leap over the Aztek's less ugly sister the Rendezvous. Sharp interior. Love the styling of the shifter on the console.
LaCrosse: I like the bold new grille and the addition of the V-8 powered LaCrosse Super.
Lucerne: Even the base Lucerne looks great by my standards and the price is very reasonable. However, I'd go all the way and get the Lucerne CXS with the 18" wheels and Northstar V-8! Great job, Buick! This car was 1st runner-up when I purchased my new call this past fall.
Cadillac:
CTS: Really nice inside and out. A vastly improved interior over the 2003-07 generation. Can't wait for the CTS-V!
STS: Very Expensive for one optioned to my standards. A little too close to the new CTS in appearance and often got confused looking at the two.
DTS: Well, a DTS Performance was my ultimate choice and I'm not disappointed with it. However, it is looking a bit old school compared to the rest of Cadillac's offerings.
SLR: Really nice midsize SUV. Can't understand why this pretty ute doesn't sell better than it does. It looks infinitely better than the misshapen yet popular Lexus RX330.
XLR: If I wanted an expensive toy, I'd take it over any exotic any day!
Escalade: Still King of the SUVs!!!
Ford:
Mustang: Good God, this car is beautiful! Love the GT and Shelby versions. The new Bullitt Mustang looks awesome.
Fusion: I like it better than the Mercury Milan. It looks better in Ford livery.
Taurus: Don't even see why Ford bothers building the Crown Victoria as the Taurus is nearly just as big. Really, this car isn't that bad.
Focus: Good God! Who designed it, a blind orangutan? The little chrome side vents looks stupid and the front end looks like an insect. The Civic and Corolla are going to walk all over this one.
Mercury:
Sable: Like the Infiniti-like clock in the center stack. The grille would make for a nice Buick.
Milan: Not bad, but it's like the Fusion's less attractive older sister. Weird taillights.
Grand Marquis: Only one on display and the only people I saw showing any interest were this very ugly couple.
Lincoln:
MKZ: Liked the Zephyr name much better. The instrument panel reminds me of that of the classic 1961-64 Continentals. The interior looks much nicer in beige with the lighter wood. The cheap prop rod for the hood and the ugly taillamps the look like they cam off a 1981 Thunderbird kill this car. The Mazda platform shows through like a wet T-shirt.
Navigator: Yeah, the instrument panel reminds me of the console on my Mom's early '70s Hotpoint stove, but I like it.
MKX: The grille reminds me of the classic early '60s Continental, but there's that cheap hood prop rod again! AAARRRGHHH!!!
Dodge:
Caliber: Kewl mini-Magnum. The dashboard drink cooler is a nice touch!
Charger: This car is a really awesome sedan! Make mine a red SRT-8! Would still be happy with it as a lowly 3.5 V-6. They've got to make a coupe version sometime in the future. Maybe that's the role of the Challenger? Great job, Dodge!
Avenger: Nice exterior styling spoiled by an bargain basement interior. I thought they were supposed to fix this?
Chrysler:
300/300-C/SRT-8: Still a nice design, but getting a bit long in the tooth.
Crossfire: nice toy based on an old Mercedes.
Sebring convertible: the youthful choice of happy, fortunate teenage girls everywhere.
Sebring sedan: Weird styling and bargain basement interior. Reminds me more of a Plymouth. Drags Chrysler's once prestigious name in the mud.
PT Cruiser: I believe this vehicle should've been a Plymouth all along. I like the exterior look of the Chevrolet HHR but the interior of the PT Cruiser better.
Aspen: Why do they even bother? The Escalade, Navigator, and LX470 mop the floor with the Aspen.
Toyota:
Yaris: Why bother? I thought Scion took care of this market?
Corolla: Nice dependable compact. Seems Toyota put more effort into its smaller cars than the larger ones.
Camry: Not as bad as some make it out to be but still nothing to crow about. Still got that "pig nose."
Avalon: A dashboard that looks like it was inspired by my Mom's 1965 Lady Kenmore washing machine and poor fit and finish. Toyota's about to become the next GM...OF THE 1970s!
Prius: Technically interesting but too dorky looking. For a decent hybrid, check out the Civic Hybrid.
Matrix: New styling with a gruesome instrument panel.
Tundra: Last years big thing was tucked away in the corner as if Toyota was ashamed of it.
Honda:
Fit: Nice little car to compete against Yaris, Scion, and others. Seemed to have good fit and finish compared to the others.
Civic: I still dig the cool Jetsons instrument panel!
Accord: Seems to be a bigger car with a rather non-Honda looking interior. Nissan came to mind. Don't know what to make of this one.
Element: Cleaned up styling makes the vehicle at least tolerable to look at.
Nissan:
Altima coupe: Cool little mini-Z.
Titan: Much improved interior quality.
Subaru:
Tribeca: Much improved styling. It kind of now looks like a Chrysler Aspen.
You pretty much saved me a trip to the Chi-town show. I'm not in the market for a newer vehicle so wasn't going to go, and this overall summary gave me the info I needed.
Sorry for the delay, it's been snowing here darn near everyday since last Tuesday, and we're in for another foot or so tonight - tomorrow.
Forget the donuts, time to start digging out again... :sick:
I have a 2003 Accord EX four-cylinder sedan (no leather). The sticker price was $23,000 in May 2003. We have been very happy with the performance, fuel economy and reliability of the four cylinder, and have no desire for either a V-6 or a $27,000 price tag for our next car. We are also happy with the interior room and truck space. We do not want a bigger car (my parking space at work is not too big).
With the 1994 Accord, Honda misjudged the market and made it smaller, and didn't offer a V-6. That is when the Camry nailed down first place in passenger car sales.
Now, over a decade later, Honda may have made the opposite mistake.
Plus, with fuel prices at $3 a gallon, recession fears everywhere, and a housing bust making the use of home equity loans to finance purchases much more difficult, Honda should not be emphasizing the more expensive V-6 models.
Well Honda did make a mistake in the size like you said for the 94 Accord but Honda did nail it with the 96 Accord refresh.
"and didn't offer a V-6."
For the 1995 model year Accord-present Accord a V6 has been offered in the Accord.
"That is when the Camry nailed down first place in passenger car sales."
No, The Ford Tarus was the best selling passenger car in the US from 1992-1996 I believe and not the Camry. 1997 was the year that the Camry took over the first place in the passenger car market although the Accord was the #1 selling passenger car for 2001.
"Now, over a decade later, Honda may have made the opposite mistake."
I agree Honda may have made the 08 Accord too big in size.
"Plus, with fuel prices at $3 a gallon, recession fears everywhere, and a housing bust making the use of home equity loans to finance purchases much more difficult, Honda should not be emphasizing the more expensive V-6 models."
I agree with your paragraph above.
Yeah but the last generation of Accord was deeply questioned with the styling too. I think the current Accord Sedan is alot less offensive looking than the 03-05 Accord. I still think that the back end of the 08 Accord Sedan is way too conservative. The front end looks alright though. The 08 Accord Coupe looks better than its sedan counterpart I think.
The Camry had one for 1992, plus its 1992 redesign looked "bigger" and more "important" than the 1994-97 Accord, even though I personally prefer the Accord. The 1992 redesign made it into a "little Lexus."
carguy: No, The Ford Tarus was the best selling passenger car in the US from 1992-1996 I believe and not the Camry. 1997 was the year that the Camry took over the first place in the passenger car market although the Accord was the #1 selling passenger car for 2001.
The Accord was number-one in 1989 and 1990..don't know about 1991. The Taurus recaptured the crown briefly, but only through heavy use of rebates and fleet sales, which seriously damaged its image in the long run.
The downfall of the Taurus began during this time, when Ford failed to update the drivetrains with an ohc engine, improve the fragile automatic transmissions and make sure that the whole car was kept more current with the competition.
Either the Accord or the Camry were definitely number-one in retail sales during this time period.
In the firm's just-released "Best Overall Values of the Year" award, which examines 2008-model vehicles, Toyota division had nine winners, Chevrolet had eight, Honda had three and Mini will have two.
The study, in its 22nd year, said Toyota Prius was the best car under $24,000. Chevrolet's Corvette convertible was the best car over $24,000, and General Motors and Toyota also split the overall truck winners, with the Chevy Silverado the best truck value over $27,000, and the Toyota Tacoma best truck under $27,000.
Bell says Toyota and GM account for more than half the total list of winners. "Toyota is a perennial leader in quality and value, but these findings also speak to the tremendous strides that GM has made in recent years in delivering desirable, durable, and high-value vehicles."
Says Bell, "GM's strategy of pulling out of fleet is paying off. Among SUVs, the Honda Pilot is the only one that is not a Toyota or Chevy nameplate." He says the numbers suggest consumers are shifting perception of GM vehicles as merely good deals--in which the idea of value resides entirely in getting the lowest sticker price possible.
"The thing that's interesting is that for GM, there is a more healthy degree of desirability from the quality and design standpoint. They are starting to nail it down. It's a big surprise," he adds. "When I first joined IntelliChoice, it was Honda and Toyota. Toyota has continued strong and carries momentum, but GM has chewed away at what Honda and the domestics and Toyota have done; in some respects GM has slipped into that area that would normally be seen as Honda's spot."
I found this comment interesting from "KixStart":
The IntelliChoice awards themselves make fascinating reading.
Chevy won, unsurprisingly in most of the pickup categories. However, Toyota took 1/2 ton 2WD (and why not in 1/2 ton AWD? There’s a mystery).
Outside of that, Chevrolet won the award in the coveted “cargo van” (with the UPLANDER??? Well, that justifies using its picture here) and “full size van” (Express) categories and also took “sport” with the Corvette. Toyota doesn’t offer any vehicles in those categories.
In the rest of the categories, Lexus or Toyota pulled in most of the awards. The Prius got BOTH midsize UNDER $21,000 and OVER $21,000 (by virtue of different trim levels).
And GM is GAINING ground? This reminds me of that ad where the cat barks.
Well, GM, never fear! When it comes out in 2010 2011 2012, I’m sure the Volt will be named NACOTY. And IntelliChoice will invent a new category for it and you can win a BOVY there, too.
The message to me is clear: don't take any press release at face value.
The above are the criteria to pick the Intellichoice winners. It is specifically a data crunching exercise. Individual opinion does not play into it. It also has nothing to do with how the vehicles are perceived other than how that effects cost to own (residual values).
I am sure plenty out there can find reason to fault the survey but it is data driven and there are plenty other outlets that can give you the opinion driven answers they are looking for.
Funny how folks just seem to want to find fault with any info that goes against their personal opinion. So Toyota does not make a full size van? So what. GM and others do and GM is tops in that category. Prius beats other midsize vehicles? Yea and it is heavily price supported by the profits they make with their other vehicles.
Oh, why did the Toyota 2wd get it and not the 4WD? Because the Toyota 4WD did not do better than it's competitiors. Again the data brings the answers. Perhaps weenies are buying Toyota 2WD and loving them and the real contractors are buying the GM AWD and loving them? I have no idea why. Again its the data, not opinion.
Just the facts mam.
For me personally, a lot of these assumptions don't apply in my situation because I tend to keep cars for a long time, insurance costs are quite low because my wife and I are empty-nesters in a low-cost area (central VA), and most importantly, I do almost all my own maintenance and light repair work. I have access to a lift at work and a tire-changing machine, so my m&r costs really have no relationship to those of the average consumer. And my current cars hardly ever have things go wrong with them.
I will say in support of GM that the new Malibu appears to be very competitive with the import competition, so many years down the road when it's time to replace my Camrys, I will consider this car or others like it offered by GM. Maybe by then, beltlines will be lower again, so I can see out of cars better.
I doubt it. I think the rise in beltlines is more safety driven than style.
And presumably the same assumptions were made for all vehicles.
Another interesting development is that an increasing number of manufacturers are expanding the size of the thorax bags to protect the pelvis as well.
Repair estimates for Edmunds TCO are estimated as follows:
"This expense is based on the cost of a typical "zero deductible" extended warranty for the vehicle, minus the estimated amount of that cost that consists of the warranty provider's overhead and profit." link
i.e. Chevrolet is there with a full line up of lower priced cars/trucks and in one standalone dealership franchise.
Buick/GMC/Pontiac have been combining for years with GMC higher end trucks, Buick higher end cars/CUV and Pontiac sporty vehicles. Pontiac is the furthest behind as they get into the RWD cars over the next 2 years.
Cadillac is there with a full line of premium cars/trucks. Then GM has the niche Saab and Hummer which will be put into Cadillac dealerships.
I know that standalone GMC, Pontiac, Buick dealerships are becoming less common all the time. How could a Buick only survive on 3 lower volume vehcicles?
Mr. Press, speaking to an automotive conference taking place before an
annual car-dealer convention here, said that in coming years, the company
will shrink its product portfolio to improve profitability. The smaller
portfolio will best benefit dealers who combine the auto maker's three
brands -- Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep -- into one location, he said.
For dealers waiting on big buyout incentives, they may want to change their
strategy. Joking, Mr. Press said Chrysler could offer big buyout bonuses,
"but about three days later you'd be unhappy when the check bounced." The
executive said the company will support dealers to consolidate three brands
into one location in various ways, such as evaluating real estate, but he
said dealers that don't make moves to consolidate will not be able to
maximize profits when the company's next round of new products starts
hitting dealerships.
Clearly you do not understand how a car dealership works. My old Buick dealer sold about 250 new cars annually. But they also sold another 1000 or so used cars. Most new car dealer probably sell more used cars than new ones. They probably make as much or more on each used car than the new ones. The used cars probably bring in 3 to 4 times the money that the new car sales do. Basically most new car buyers have a used car to trade in, then that car is bought by someone who also has a trade in; and so on. New car dealers probably buy "factory made used cars", otherwise known as program cars.
SLS, that one took a real chuckle from me!!
Anyway the whole discussion within the domestic industry right now is the volume of cars sold per dealership. The leader I think right now is Toyota and they sell about 3 times the vehicles per dealer than Chevy. Much worse at Buick and others. One reason is that there are many more of these small dealers that are near each other and competing with each other. This drives down the selling price and therefore the profitability of each dealer. BUT, in a small dealership the profit margin has to be higher to support the entire facility vs. one that has more sales so most of these small dealers are really hurting (perhaps used cars are helping).
The real issue is that for many reasons (state frachise laws, family owned delarerships, etc) the dealers are not wont to combine and sell THEIR dealership to someone else to facilitate decreasing the number of dealers. Chrysler (as has GM but not as forthright) has said they will now reduce the number of models at the 3 divisions and force all dealerships to sell all 3 brands. This will force the combining of dealerships. Perhaps Dodge will only sell trucks, Chrysler only cars and Jeep only off road vehicles. Doubt it will go this far but the whole purpose is to force closures of dealerships. Project Genesis.
Chrysler plans to significantly reduce its future product offerings, with hopes of eliminating models that compete against each other for customers and for internal resources. The company's two minivans, the Dodge Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country, are examples of arguably redundant models for a dealer selling both the Chrysler and Dodge lineups.
Chrysler also plans to add some new models in areas that it lacks and is in talks with other automakers about using their platforms -- with a Chrysler-styled body on top -- to be sold under a Chrysler brand, Chrysler President Jim Press said Saturday during a meeting with reporters. Chrysler executives are in San Francisco meeting with dealers during this weekend's National Automobile Dealers Association annual convention.
Under the new product plan, dealerships that sell only one of Chrysler's three brands -- Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep -- will not have enough models to sell to remain profitable, Chrysler executives have warned. The company wants all of its dealerships to sell all three brands under one roof.
As a side note we need to keep in mind that the data shows that the domestics do have a lot more dealers and sell fewer cars per dealer but that is not as bad as it looks. The domestics have dealers in many smaller rural areas and this drives up the number of dealers and lowers the per dealer rate. These dealers are hours apart and serve to make it easy for rural buyers. They do not want to shut down these dealers. They want ot get the ones that are close to each other in large metro areas.
However, my old Buick dealer was far and away the best.
The real point that I tried make above is that the success of a dealership does not depend on selling new cars so much as just selling cars (new or used). We have more used car dealers here than new car dealers.
However, I do understand that the domestic makers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) would be better served with fewer, bigger dealers of their new product lines. The dealers may be better off too, but this is not obviously true. I have learned that if I want a program car, asking my local dealer to get one is not the best idea, I should just go to a dealer with one (or more) in stock and see what I can do there.
Overall I'd say nothing really blew me away. It looked to me that Doge/Jeep/Chrysler had the largest amount of floor space to show off how bad their product line has become. The Challenger looks cool and had quite a bit of people looking at it, as did the Jeep Wrangler's offroad course that was setup. It had a huge line of people waiting to take a drive.
Ford looked dead. Some people looking at the trucks/suvs but, their cars looked lonely.
So did Lexus, not many people wondering around Lexus and quite frankly, we didn't even bother to look at anything other that the 70K+ LX570.
Of course, Porsche, BMW, and MB were just jammed. Could hardly look at anything w/o being sandwiched between people.
GM faired really well IMO. The ZR1 display was packed with people, along with the Camaro on display, even though it was just the model from the movie "Transformers". The Malibu looked very good and had lots of people looking at them. GMs full-size SUVs were generating a lot of lookers too. I really wanted to inspect the Suburban and GMC Denali XL and it was basically impossible to do so with so many people getting in and out of them.
After looking at GMs new interiors in the Malibu, Suburban/Denali/full-size trucks, the Trail-Blazer looks horrible and no one was even looking at them.
Rocky will be proud about the SAAB 9-3 TurboX. It looked great and was getting quite a bit of attention. I did about lose my lunch walking past the 9-7 TrailBlazer thing. I can't believe they try to pass it as a Saab, yuck!.
Hyundai was really creating a buzz too. Their display was pretty full, lots and lots of people checking out the new Genesis. It is sharp and looks to offer a strong value.
Toyota's display was pretty blah, quite a few people checking out the new Sequoia, but wasn't overly impressive in anyway.
Honda wasn't anything to write home about. The new Pilot looks pretty ugly, IMO. The Accord was OK.
VW had a pretty good display and had a lot of foot traffic. Quite a few people checking out the '09 Jetta TDI (diesel).
I was probably most impressed with GMs latest offerings (considering how much the new models have improved). Cadillac had quite a few people checking out the CTS and CTS/V which looked very sweet.
http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/show/1207
When we had a Mercedes dealer here (middle of nowhere), it was the Pontiac dealer who sold them.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/weird_news/20080211_ap_mans91pickuppassesthe1m- milemark.html
This will boost the company's stock price, which is all the company really cares about. Cars are simply a by-product of their business.
So everyone, do your patriotic duty -- take your pay cuts, accept your tax hikes, and keep paying more each year for the same things. Inflation, higher taxes, and lower wages are just the price we all have to pay to live in a free society.
God Bless GM ..... I mean America ..... God Bless Amer..... oh, heck, what's good for GM is good for America!
Right?
DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Corp. reported a $38.7 billion loss for 2007, the largest annual loss ever for an automotive company, and said it is making a new round of buyout offers to U.S. hourly workers in hopes of replacing some of them with lower-paid help.
But GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner said that the company made significant progress in 2007, negotiating a historic labor agreement and growing aggressively in Latin America and Asia.
During a conference call with analysts and media, Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson said 2008 will be difficult, but the company sees the potential for significant earnings increases by 2010 or 2011 once it reduces its work force and labor costs and transfers its retiree health-care costs to a new UAW-run trust.
The Detroit-based automaker said it was offering a new round of buyouts to all 74,000 of its U.S. hourly workers who are represented by the United Auto Workers.
GM won't say how many workers it hopes to shed, but under its new contract with the UAW, it will be able to replace up to 16,000 workers doing non-assembly jobs with new employees who will be paid half the old wage of $28 per hour.
.