General Motors discussions

bfamily

The 2008 Vue is the same platform as the 2008 Equinox and Pontiac Torrent. The Torrent is cancelled for 2010 and GMC has come out with the new 2010 Terrain, which is the same base vehicle as the 2010 Equinox.

michaellno

Andre, both the '08 VUE and the '10 Equinox and GMC Terrain use the GM Theta platform, albeit with different wheelbases.

The "Theta Premium" is an evolution of the Theta platform and this is what the '10 SRX uses.

Not that I believe everything posted in Wikipedia, but I've no reason to dispute this

nippononly

General Motors Co. has halted production of Saturn cars and crossovers and plans to sell the thousands of Saturn vehicles it has in stock within the next four months.

Many of the vehicles were built to supply to Penske Automotive Group Inc. But on Wednesday, Sept. 30, GM's expected sale of Saturn to Penske was canceled.

Within 24 hours of that news, GM built the last Saturn vehicles, said GM spokeswoman Sherrie Arb.

.....GM has about 12,000 Saturn vehicles in inventory, said Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president of U.S. sales. It is unclear how many of those are 2009s.

"We sold about 3,000 Saturns last month, so that's about a four-month supply if you maintain that selling pace," LaNeve said. "I don't think [the canceled sale of the brand] will affect our total 2010 production rate at all."

There are about 500 2010 Outlooks at the Lansing Delta plant waiting to be shipped, a GM spokesman said.

Several dealers said they were told during a conference call that GM would not allow them to order 2010s. Some believe GM will dole out its inventory so that all continuing dealers' needs would be met. But others interpreted the no-order news to mean GM wouldn't ship the cars it has built lest that open GM to lawsuits under the terms of the dealers' wind-down agreement.

Said GM spokesman John McDonald. "The intent here is to wind the dealers down ... not to keep pumping new product in the pipeline. But how do we pull back on the ordering process? We don't know yet."

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091005/CARNEWS/910059996

I thought there was going to be a production run for the 2010 model year, but it looks like they will be gone by Christmas....Saturn dealers must be so upset about this.

michaellno

Interesting article.

The Saturn website doesn't reference any MY 2010 vehicles - all are '09's except the Astra, which is '08 only.

I, too, thought there would be some 2010 Saturns sold. I'm assuming that the '10's that have been built are so marked through the VIN number.

Not that it matters ... the article states that it will take 4 months to sell what's in inventory ... I think it may take longer, or some serious incentives, to move them.

nippononly

Yeah, you've got to ask yourself who on earth would want to buy a Saturn now that they know the brand will be completely gone come January.....

anythngbutgm

To save a few bucks over a rebadge. The Outlook is more handsome than the Traverse IMO and the Aura is a supermodel next to the fugly Rentabu. I think the Sky is much better looking than the Solstice as well.

Aside from rebadges, the Astra is the most solid small car GM has ever built IMO and no other GM vehicle besides the defunct Vibe or the deathtrap Aveo/G3 offers the hatchback configuration.

The Vue has no excuse. It's heavy, and the cargo volume is a pitiful compared to competitors like the CRV, RAV4 and Forester.

I don't see much difficulty in moving out the final inventory if you are a GM shopper looking for an alternative.

andre1969

To save a few bucks over a rebadge. The Outlook is more handsome than the Traverse IMO and the Aura is a supermodel next to the fugly Rentabu. I think the Sky is much better looking than the Solstice as well.

I don't think the Malibu is really hideous, but it just doesn't do much for me. I would've taken an Aura over a Malibu even before they announced the demise of Saturn. And, if I was in the market for a car and found an Aura at a killer price, I'd still consider it. Heck, I've already got a DeSoto and two Pontiacs, so the Aura would have a few other orphans to keep it company. :P

hpmctorque

stever

"General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson told reporters the "vast majority" of GM buyers are taking the $500 rebate instead of the automaker's 60-day money-back guarantee.

His admission suggests GM is attracting buyers already committed to the brands rather than convincing fence-sitters or converting intenders of competitive makes."

GM Buyers Pick Cash Over Guarantee (AutoObserver)

lovue

That's a good question for Dave Ramsey....he'll have an answer and probably the best one you will ger. Log on to his website and take it from there. Good luck! :confuse:

stever

The lease question has been moved over to Saturn VUE Lease Questions.

Remember, you're negotiating any buy-out with the bank or lender. It may be a captive Saturn lease and they may be more willing to deal than a private lender, but either way, the dealer may be out of the loop.

vinnyny

It was time to trade in the 07 Odyssey, so I went through my biennial ritual of visiting all the domestic car dealers first. I went to Ford, Buick, GMC, Lincoln and Chevy. (Chrysler just doesn't sell a competitive CUV/SUV) anymore. After considering the Flex, Enclave, Acadia, Yukon, MKX, Tahoe, and Traverse, we decided to get serious about the Tahoe and Traverse.

Comparing the Tahoe and Traverse side-by-side, it was clear that the Traverse was more versatile and offered better value. This is especially true since the Tahoe's price (after rebates) has gone up so much since we last looked at it in 07. The Traverse was fairly well equipped at $40K. After some negotiation the dealer was firm on $36K while offering about $1K less than we realistically figured our trade was worth. We walked out, but left our contact information in case they found some additional money. The Traverse was their last 09 so we hoped new incentives would pop up. While we were there, I looked at their last 09 Corvette (selling my '05 C6 was the worst thing I've ever done). The MSRP was almost $10K higher than the 07 I considered buying two years ago. More power, added features, yup. $10K--no way.

Our next stop was at the Mazda dealer. I have liked the CX-9 since it came out in 07 but it wasn't roomy enough for our family of six. Now that one daughter is away at college, I figured it might work this time. We found a loaded 09 that stickered about $200 less than the Traverse. In short order, we negotiated the price down to $32K with $1K more for our trade. In essence, the Mazda would be $5K cheaper than the Chevy.

I called the Chevy dealer back to give him one more chance to "earn my business". I again emphasized that I really wanted to buy American and was willing to accept less and pay a little more to do so. He found another $500 but couldn't move any lower. I thanked him for his time and bought the Mazda.

Every time I go to buy a new car, I give the American car dealers the first shot at my American dollars. When they come close to the foreign competition, I buy American (07 Pontiac G6 and 08 Saturn Astra). Usually, the domestic product is priced 10-15% higher and I end up buying foreign (07 Mercedes vs. 07 Cadillac CTS, 07 Odyssey vs. 07 Chrysler T&C, etc). Throw in ridiculously low resale values and there's no way to make the math work for most American cars. Furthermore, when I try to buy American, I can rarely find a car that's actually MADE IN AMERICA. In fact, more of the "foreign" cars I looked at were made in the US than their so-called "American" counterparts. (Mexico and Canada will never be part of the US--although the US may become part of Mexico at some point).

My next purchase is likely to be a sports car or sedan. I'll look at the US makes again, but it's highly unlikely that I'll buy a $50K Cadillac CTS when I can have a BMW or Mercedes for less. I would consider a Pontiac G8, but the geniuses killed off that outstanding vehicle. I'll look at the Corvette, but considering the fact that a coupe will cost me almost what I paid for my convertible four years ago, it's unlikely that I'll buy another. Speaking of convertibles, I wouldn't mind having a toy like the Solstice or Sky, but they killed those off as well. I guess it really wouldn't matter anyway because they both cost $4-5K more than a comparable Miata and aren't much cheaper than a 370Z.

In short: 1) American cars should be MADE IN AMERICA if you want to capture patriotic buyers; 2) I'll pay more for a truly American car, but not 10-15% more; 3) When I'm paying more for my American car, I don't want to give up content or quality (so lose the Rubbermaid interiors).

Sorry for the long diatribe...

imidazol97

>1) American cars should be MADE IN AMERICA if you want to capture patriotic buyers; 2) I'll pay more for a truly American car, but not 10-15% more; 3) When I'm paying more for my American car, I don't want to give up content or quality (so lose the Rubbermaid interiors).

Please contact the UAW to give them your views. They are the ones who caused the prices to be so high and cost-cutting measures. AND they have been protected from major loss of over-priced labor by the current administration in the GM settlement when they could have been ousted.

Mr_Shiftright

Really? Did we just find GM execs tied up in a broom closet these last 30 years? :P

ggeeoo

Look at the new lLincoln C car now give me that interior and clean diesel hybrid
under the hood. I would pay 39,000.00 for that!

vinnyny

I'm with you--the UAW shares much of the blame. The Obama administration perpetuated the problem. But let's not forget the Clinton administration--they brought us the joys of NAFTA.

The UAW would only laugh at my views because it's immaterial to them. Their only concern is signing up more sheep and they don't care a lick if they have to violate the Constitution to do it (Card Check).

The UAW's, ACORN's, and Al Gore's of the world are sucking this country dry and will destroy it in time. The well is only so deep and it's almost dry. A country that MAKES nothing IS nothing.

vinnyny

They may not have been tied up in a closet, but they were certainly bound up by the UAW. Few companies can afford to get shut down for months at a time while their workers are on strike--the Big Three are no exceptions. When there was little foreign competition, US makers could afford such largesse. Toyota and Honda put an end to that...

imidazol97

>GM execs tied up in a broom closet

And those broom jobs paid them very handsomely through the years!

fintail

So the UAW forced 30 years of undesirable cars and hilariously poor longterm planning (which is an epidemic in American business as a whole)? Interesting.

I guess it's all because of a union and the two previous donkey regimes - executive leadership and the elephants who opened China and later elephant regimes have no part in any problems, never have, never will. Very convenient.

Mr_Shiftright

It's not only scapegoats who make a very good wage at GM :P

imidazol97

The techniques, if history serves me right, is that the union would threaten to strike one company only. So if the most successful company of the three were, say GM, then GM either had to give it partially to the UAW's demands or face a months long strike where the others would be selling cars to GM's customers who couldn't get GM cars. Because the threat was only against one automaker at a time, there was no winning.

The technique should have been that all three automakers were going to work together and if struck at one, all would close until settlement. Of course the government anti-collusion law would be cited and the automakers forced to break up their collusion.

vinnyny

I don't know why the domestic automakers didn't declare bankruptcy a decade ago. They could have dumped the unions and all the unfunded pension liabilites that have strapped them for so long--especially after the feds agreed to pick up some of the pension liabilities.

vinnyny

Good analysis. In spite of all their other problems, a well-organized union can kill off any company, no matter how strong that company might be.

By the way, I'm not anti-union--some actually serve a purpose other than lining the pockets of the leadership.

vinnyny

So the UAW forced 30 years of undesirable cars and hilariously poor longterm planning (which is an epidemic in American business as a whole)? Interesting.


While I agree that the short-term focus of most American businesses is a serious problem, to say that GM sold "undesirable cars" for the last 30 years is ridiculous. GM sold more cars than any other automaker in the US until last year. Somebody must have desired those cars...Besides, much of what was wrong with GM's offerings can be attributed to all the cost-cutting required to offset the UAW contracts. Any business that pays high school grads as much as engineers is doomed to fail eventually.

fintail

Who bought the cars? Easy...public and private fleets, especially rental fleets for cars and industrial customers for trucks.

What is the cost per vehicle for admittedly bloated UAW perks?

Mr_Shiftright

a somewhat weak defense IMO, because the UAW doesn't design or market cars, they just bolt them together.

I say "somewhat" weak because it is true that an ornery union can harm a company, but I don't think they can bring down a healthy one any more than 1000 squirrels can bring down a water buffalo. But they could be *very* annoying and take him off his feed... :P

kernick

of what you build. Do something that 20 other car companies aren't already doing! Want to do take a gamble at success, rather than wallowing in failure, try something like this.

http://www.aptera.com/

The tail-lights kind of remind me of an old Buick Riviera. How about vehicles like this for Buick?

vinnyny

While the Big 3 sold lots of cars to rental fleets, they weren't alone. Want proof? Try to rent a compact, midsize, or large car today and not get a Kia or Hyundai. The Big 3 may have padded their sales this way, they didn't sell millions of cars to fleet buyers.

As to the UAW's added cost per car, I've seen studies that put the number anywhere between $1200-1800 each. However, I don't think that captures the full cost--like significantly lower productivity due to absurd union work rules.

Mr_Shiftright

A U.N. study done in 2007 says that US workers lead the world in productivity, in terms of wealth produced per year. Part of that is due to the fact that we work longer hours than most, but also due to the fact that amount of work done per hour is higher. So it's a tricky number but it genereally stands up to scrutiny.

The actual average hourly wage of a UAW worker is $28.78. GM says it costs $70 an hour to employ a UAW worker, but that includes many expenses any employer has to pay, like SS, workman's comp, unemployment, Medicare, etc.

Toyota's cost is claimed to be $53 per hour for 'everything'. However, the UAW will cut the costs $8 per hour in 2010 by agreement of taking over retiree health costs at that time. So then the wage gap will be $9 an hour between GM and Toyota---not too drastic really.

fintail

Yes, you can also easily find Mazdas and Toyotas in rental fleets, at least in my area. But they are not addicted to this customer. See what percentage of GM cars go to fleets vs almost anyone else.

They did sell millions of vehicles to fleet buyers. Pontiacs especially were dependent upon such purchases, along with many models from other nameplates. Did any private customers actually buy a Grand Prix from 2006 onwards? Who buys an Impala today?

I won't argue the UAW has much blame in this, but the cars being lacklustre is very much a part of poor styling, poor ergonomics, and cost cutting while execs continued to become zillionaires. Bad planning, unskilled management. There too often seems to be a lot more than an $1800 difference between a GM car and its competition.

eprentice

stever

now they can zap your stolen vehicle

Two years later and they finally zap one. Turns out it's a "new" feature.

OnStar Helps Halt Stolen SUV in High-speed Chase (Firstcoastnews.com)

Karl doesn't like calling them. I think he wants "anonymous" help.

Why OnStar Actually Increases My Apprehensive Level

Mr_Shiftright

So Pontiac is dead, Saturn is dead, Hummer has been sold to the Chinese, and Opel might be going to the Canadians (Magna Corp). I wonder when this will end?

vinnyny

Sorry Shifty, but I can't buy your argument either:

A U.N. study done in 2007 says that US workers lead the world in productivity, in terms of wealth produced per year. Part of that is due to the fact that we work longer hours than most, but also due to the fact that amount of work done per hour is higher. So it's a tricky number but it genereally stands up to scrutiny.

I'm sure that US workers are more productive than those in Botswana. However, I'd submit that our workers are more productive IN SPITE OF the UAW rather than BECAUSE OF it. Our workers have better equipment, education, nutrition, health care, climate control, and a thousand other advantages over all of the third world and much of the western world. So, are they really more productive because they carry UAW cards in their wallets? I don't think so.

The actual average hourly wage of a UAW worker is $28.78. GM says it costs $70 an hour to employ a UAW worker, but that includes many expenses any employer has to pay, like SS, workman's comp, unemployment, Medicare, etc.
Toyota's cost is claimed to be $53 per hour for 'everything'. However, the UAW will cut the costs $8 per hour in 2010 by agreement of taking over retiree health costs at that time. So then the wage gap will be $9 an hour between GM and Toyota---not too drastic really.

Assuming that foreign auto makers do nothing to improve their cost curves, the $9 per hour difference is still more than 17%. ANY company forced to carry a 17% handicap versus its competition better pray that the competition is unabashedly greedy or it is doomed to go the way of "old GM".

By the way, $28.78 per hour is almost 50% more than the average US worker ($16.75/hour in 2006). Why?

stever

Maybe hire Suzuki?

Suzuki Executives Not Gods, Seem Normal(Straightline)

Interesting commentary on how to do business.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm not saying the UAW makes them more productive, or less productive. I'm only saying that they ARE productive. Could they be more so? Sure, couldn't we all?

Of course, raising their productivity is limited by GM's ability to sell what they make.

Besides, real wages adjusted for inflation have not gone up for the UAW, or for most Americans, since the mid 1970s.

GM has no excuse. They took the profits from high productivity and squandered them in various schemes that didn't pan out, like a financing operation. They certainly didn't give those profits back to the workers. Had they done so, we would have seen an immense jump in real wages.

It's not there on the record books. A conspicuous absence.

cooterbfd

".....By the way, $28.78 per hour is almost 50% more than the average US worker ($16.75/hour in 2006). Why? "

Could it have to do with the fact that the average car costs around $28,000, whereas a washer/dryer set is $1100? And don't think that the transplants don't make those kind of wages either. That $9 or 17% difference includes bennies, which are still more generous than the transplants, which means the actual salaries are much closer.

grbeck

Mr. Shiftright: Of course, raising their productivity is limited by GM's ability to sell what they make.

Not entirely. If GM could lay off employees when sales slump (instead of having to maintain the Jobs Bank), or replace them with machines when they retire (until recently, the UAW contract required GM to replace employees who retired or quit), productivity would also increase.

Mr. Shiftright: Besides, real wages adjusted for inflation have not gone up for the UAW, or for most Americans, since the mid 1970s.

I would like to see the actual figures for UAW members. I have a hard time believing this.

Also note that even if wages didn't increase, the cost of health care benefits and pensions undoubtedly did over that timeframe. So GM's total labor cost per employee increased, which is the figure that really matters.

Mr_Shiftright

Data from the Congressional Budget Office states that average real income of the bottom 90% of American taxpaypers (which should include all UAW members) fell 7% 1973-2000. The top 1%'s income rose $148% and the top 0.1% (which should include the CEO of GM) rose 343%. (this, by the way, *excludes* capital gains).

cooterbfd

Those are disgusting statistics. But, all the "capitalists" should be happy that their "golbal marketplace" is doing wonders for our income. Any wonder why Hyundai's sale are fine while everybody else's is in the tank?? Because people who could traditionally afford the Malibu's and Camry's and Accord's can now only afford a Sonata

Mr_Shiftright

If Hyundai could rise up out of the muck they created for themselves in America in the 1980s, I don't see why GM couldn't have done the same.

One could argue that Hyundai's price point has helped a lot, and that's not a bad argument---but probably not the whole picture.

Hyundai certainly has proven that an automaker can live down its bad reputation. Took 15-20 years though.

Henry Ford figured out 90 years ago that if you pay your workers enough they'll buy the same car they make.

$5 a day and $290 for a new Model T.

So can a GM worker buy a simple, basic new GM car with 58 days wages?

Comes out to about $13,000 before taxes --- so $10K after taxes? Is that a fair guess?

So-----Nope, GM worker comes up a bit short.

But he can BORROW, which the Ford worker in the 1920s found very hard to do.

What's the cheapest GM car you can buy? Chevy Aveo....but made in Korea. (Daewoo).

Ironic.

kernick

Nissan puts out a new car for $9,999 which is very similar in features to what a new car was back in Henry Ford's time, or even the 50's and 60's.

So a GM worker could afford that type of new car. Maybe the problem is that in automakers trying to outdo each other with features, more power, more weight and size, they have created vehicles that few can afford? or that want to lose that much in depreciation?

If I were an automaker I'd certainly be trying to make autos that the middle class can afford, which is in the $10K range.

berri

Might Hyundai also be getting some backdoor Korean government assistance allowing them to sell at a lower price point profitably? I also know that the southern states that protested loudly against D3 money gave the boat away to Hyundai and some other foreign auto companies.

Hyundai is going to have to achieve better resale/residual value though or a lot of your initial purchase price savings will be lost at trade-in time.

Mr_Shiftright

Selling below cost in the USA is called "dumping" and is severely frowned upon. I doubt Korea would risk the undoubtedly nasty repercussions of such behavior.

berri

What repercussions? Maybe it will change under Obama, but there aren't too many of these and when one is done its usually some kind of political show. Besides, there's probably nothing against Korea giving favorable financing, etc. to Hyundai. And then you've got to get the WTC to take America's side in the dispute, something that isn't easy to get with so many countries seemingly routing against us. Obama's move against Chinese tires is relatively short in timeframe because the WTC is so slow in action they are probably betting on it expiring before WTC actually acts.

Mr_Shiftright

I think if there was a case for dumping it would definitely have been implemented by pressures exerted by the D3. The last time the Japanese did this, the stop leak really hit the fan---Congress went ballistic on them. Threats of embargo were the mildest reaction.

vinnyny

You guys are missing the point. The foreign automakers don't have to "dump" anything. They build most of the cars here using cheap labor in Alabama, South Carolina, and other states that offered HUGE incentive packages. The point was that domestic automakers are straddled with bloated UAW contracts and do not receive preferential tax treatment--hence they're at a disadvantage to their Asian competition. I'm willing to bet that Honda builds a greater share of its US products in the US than GM does its so-called domestics. (Again, thanks NAFTA).

imidazol97

>that Honda builds a greater share of its US products

What percentage of cars does Honda and Toyota build here in the US? Someone had numbers couple years ago, and it was less than they would like us to believe.

Mr_Shiftright

Too simplistic. If that were true, how would one explain the success of BMW, Porsche or even some models of Ford? None use cheap labor.

Blaming the UAW for the wreck of GM is like blaming the crew of the Titanic for hitting the iceberg while failing to mention the participation of the captain and officers.

The UAW doesn't vote every time GM decides to cheapen some part or under-develop some model, nor does it have anything to do with advertising, marketing, and the dealer networks, nor does it interfere in the financial arm and its policies.

If the UAW built the very best cars in the world and charged extra for them, do you really think consumers would refuse to buy them?

stever

I wonder if BMW or Porsche has a union rep sitting on their boards? Remember, there's now a UAW-VEBA seat on new GM board.

Ok, nosing around, it looks like German employees have a lot of influence on how a corporation is run. A while back the number two at BMW, Wolfgang Reitzle, was in line to be CEO, but a lone dissenting vote from the employee rep against him led him to turn down the job (he had the votes, but didn't want the workers against him). That's one version of the story anyway.