I checked the 335ix, as we were discussing awd, or the most expensive, I forget. What options arent available on the CTS??? Active cruise control?? At $2400, I can control my own, TY. That's just to show off.
Now, I can bring up the "info" on the CTS options, but not the 3 or G for some reason, so we may have overlapping options on the checklist, I dunno. But an AWD G can get up to $45K. So, at $45-$50K we are in the ballpark, and it just comes down to what the customer prefers.
Either way, the customer is getting what they pay for.
My view is that the business model is way too close to the old model. Just because GM jettisoned the bad segments and debt, that does not make it a viable company based on a successful business strategy. I have high skepticism that the company will ultimately stand on it's own. Here is a little insight on the rumblings of trouble to come...
The board gave Henderson, 51, a 100-day review yesterday on his performance since GM’s July 10 bankruptcy exit, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions were private. He was asked to leave, and several directors suggested that an outsider is needed as CEO, one person said.
Henderson’s exit caps a tenure that included aborted deals to sell the Saturn, Saab and Opel units, a struggle to replace top managers such as Chief Financial Officer Ray Young, and U.S. market-share losses.
and some more...
Last month, Henderson surprised analysts as GM reported generating $3.3 billion in cash in the third quarter and said repayments would start early on $6.7 billion in federal loans. At the same time, he said GM lost $1.15 billion and would consume cash again this quarter.
Whitacre also said last month he favored an initial public offering later than that originally discussed by Henderson.
“Whether it was the sale of Opel or the timing of a GM IPO, it had become clear in recent months that the board and the CEO were not always on the same page,” Himanshu Patel, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst in New York, wrote in a report late yesterday.
The disagreements were “useful in some cases, but probably unhealthy for any company longer term,” Patel wrote.
This shows a fragmented direction, at best, of the ultimate plan GM should take. The financial numbers are also suspect and I wonder how a company generating cash can still loose money. Perhaps that's the real reason Fritz was sent packing at the end of the day.
I wonder how a company generating cash can still loose money
That would be the airlines!
You raise some good points. I suspect that when you have some very strong willed people like Whitacre, Henderson and Lutz the boardroom gets overcrowded and decision making gets difficult. Some are now speculating Lutz will become the CEO, but I think that will probably just bring on some more clashes. The government is the largest owner right now and their man Whitacre has spoken. I wish them well.
The financial numbers are also suspect and I wonder how a company generating cash can still loose money.
There are 3 main, separate reports to any corporation. The one report will look at profit and losses, which are booked at the time of a sale or at the time a liability (ex. buying parts or paying wages) is incurred.
The cash-flow report of a corporation however considers when $ are received, and when bills are paid which is a different time-frame. Most corporations pay bills 45-60 days later. Government loan $ may just being received.
With a corporation in financial disarray right now with supplier and dealer closings and bankruptcies, government loans and credits, and asset reevaluations, it is no wonder that anyone casually looking at the numbers would be totally confused.
The best number we can look at to understand how GM is doing is how many retail transactions do they have when there isn't a C4C program going on. The other number to look at which again may be hard to determine with the various ways GM was given $, is - "how much has the U.S. given to GM? Is it increasing or being repaid?"
Well all the ones I checked are RWD models. It doesn't matter if the options are mere novelty or just gizmos, it's still not available at the other end so I didn't check it if I want to make a fair comparison, duh.
It's not fair to compare a RWD CTS to an AWD G. It should be RWD G vs. RWD CTS, which ends up as roughly $42k vs. $45k, respectively. By comparison, the equally optioned 335i RWD costs about $49k. There you go.
With the board doing an about-face, prospective CEOs may be deterred, leaving Whitacre little choice except to keep the job, Elson said. GM is “a sick company with a bad ownership structure and pay constraints,” he said. “It would give any candidate real pause.”
Former director York said Whitacre probably could get the job done. Nor would the chairman’s status as an industry newcomer be a hindrance, said York, was chief financial officer at the former Chrysler Corp. and at International Business Machines Corp. when then-CEO Louis Gerstner saved the company.
“The prototype is in Dearborn, Michigan,” York said in a telephone interview, referring to Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally, who was recruited in 2006 from Boeing Co. and kept the second-biggest U.S. automaker from needing a federal bailout.
While Mulally’s success may influence how GM picks a CEO, with a “strong likelihood they will go outside the industry,” Ford’s experience would be difficult to replicate, said Martin Bohling, global managing partner of Courland Automotive Practice, an auto-industry executive search specialist.
First, Mulally had engineering and production experience transferrable to Ford, said Bohling, whose Chicago-based firm has recruited for GM. Second, CEO pay at GM is subject to review by the Treasury’s special master. Mulally earned $35.3 million for 2007 and 2008, according to Ford filings.
GM’s government ownership and curbs on compensation mean this isn’t a routine search, a process that already typically takes four to five months, York told Bloomberg Television.
“This will be a bone-crushing job for whoever gets it,” York said.
Perhaps Jeremy Anwyl will be considered! :confuse:
As I said before, GM has failed with its business model, system of making and selling vehicles, in marketing them, and in their managment methods of these systems.
They need to trash "The System" and reinvent themselves to have better systems than the competition.
Idea: how about a system where I can design on their website a base $6,000 50-mpg 3-wheel GM vehicle, add the options I want, have it painted a color I want, and have it shipped to my house? From time of order to delivery = 8 weeks. I'd bet there are millions of people who would be in a market for a new vehicle if they didn't cost $20,000+!
That would be a tall order with franchise laws and contracts regarding the dealers. They not going to let GM sell vehicles outside of their channel, plus you need the dealers for service. Plus reinventing GM would require dealing with the UAW, good luck with that.
Idea: how about a system where I can design on their website a base $6,000 50-mpg 3-wheel GM vehicle, add the options I want, have it painted a color I want, and have it shipped to my house? From time of order to delivery = 8 weeks. I'd bet there are millions of people who would be in a market for a new vehicle if they didn't cost $20,000+!
Yep that's an idea, but the option I'd want is the whole car.
That would be a tall order with franchise laws and contracts regarding the dealers
And now there's this on the news:
"General Motors said Thursday it will reconsider its decision to close some dealerships as part of a compromise to stave off federal legislation that would require it to keep dealerships open."
>General Motors said Thursday it will reconsider its decision to close
The story includes Chrysler. I can see several lawsuits developing now from dealerships that capitulated and already have made changes and closed due to being targeted for closure.
The dealers in this scenario would become Service Only locations. Sales coats would trim the total cost of the new car supply chain.
This will not happen without many kicking and screaming dealers as you noted. Somewhere down the road, the Dell supply chain scenario would work for autos as well. The point is that change is inevitable if the U.S. manufactureres want to beat the competition.
Currently, the marketing is speaking very clearly.
Note the GM line on the 10 yr. chart...Looks like the vapor trail of a once mighty airship headed for inevitable doom.
The financial numbers are also suspect and I wonder how a company generating cash can still loose money.
There could be many accounting related possibilities. The operations could be losing money, but GM could be screezing its suppliers and make payments at a later date. Or it could force dealers to make quicker payments. Or it could be not making any capital expeditures. Or could be pension related adjustments. And so on. Since GM is not public, there is really no way for us to figure it out. In any case, the P&L should be the index on the performance of the operation.
Although it is a fact that big car companies can't turn on a dime, I think it is a little premature to say that Mulally has succeeded. Last I checked the only companies that really had sales increases in the past year are Hyundai and Subaru. Plus, most of Ford's market share gains are based on GM's demise.
...or deal with cut throat dealers that just add cost to the delivery.
Excellent idea! Why hasn't any of the auto brains thought of that?
GM is never going to succeed if they are always following. While I think the Volt is a huge gamble not likely to succeed, you have to admire them for at least trying.
Look at Apple. The MP3 player had been around for a while when the iPod came out. But Jobs at Apple integrated the device, the computer, and the distribution process in a new way and they have revolutionized the music industry. Where is GM's innovation?
For example, are dealers a throwback to the old days? What about dealers only providing service and a few cars for demo driving, then you order online and the car comes in 3-4 weeks? Think of the logistics savings in not storing all those cars at dealer lots. Why not think way out of the box? Why not find a way to put out a less expensive car? What about a small ultra high quality driver like a BMW 3 or 1 style car at a premium price? Why not add $5K to the Corvette and produce an Audi-like interior? Why not put 3 LCDs on the dash and make then entire instrument panel configurable like newer airliners can do? Why not put a wireless link to your home network so your audio system can sync your music library to the car? Why not auto start/stop for even normal gas powered cars to save fuel? Why not auto neutral while at stop signs and red lights to take the drag off the engine? Etc.....
That would be a tall order with franchise laws and contracts regarding the dealers. They not going to let GM sell vehicles outside of their channel, plus you need the dealers for service. Plus reinventing GM would require dealing with the UAW, good luck with that.
And that was a mistake made when GM went bankrupt - choosing what sort of bankruptcy to do. GM should have been totally shutdown, dissolved in essence - all workers and dealers let go. The government then could have started it up the next week under a new name with a new structure, and new rules and contracts.
Yep that's an idea, but the option I'd want is the whole car.
Yes you might want or need the traditional 4 wheel, 2 ton vehicle. You have many vehicle manufaxcturers offering you options. GM has lost the war in this market and should move on. There is a huge market of people making $<15/hr and people between 16-25 though who can't afford new vehicles. Now if GM had something for them, I think they would find a market to move millions of vehicles.
There are many intersting vehicles that can be built once you move outside the strict and confining rules of what our government requires 4-wheel vehicles to be.
Excellent points, especially about how the manufacturers continue to sell vehicles just like it's 1960.
But as with most of this GM and Chrysler story, it's about powerful political and business groups calling in their IOU's to politicians, to protect their groups fiefdoms and personal-troughs. And it is the U.S. taxpayer who's being taken to the cleaners to pay the bill - all in the name of abiding to the laws, because they are the laws and contracts - but let us not question whether the laws are FAIR!
What the government should be doing is what is EFFICIENT, not what is best for themselves and their friends, at the expense of the rest of us.
Certainly the continued financial support of the failed systems at GM and Chrysler are not in the average person's interest. What's done is done - ok. We've supported them. But now we're told there is no real change?! A little trimming of the small divisions? Failure to sell their dead Saab and Hummer. Continuance of the methods and products that caused the bankruptcy? Just add it to the growing debt right - no problem?
Whitacre made the announcements in a broadcast to GM employees worldwide. He told the workers he wants them to take risks, make decisions and be entrepreneural. If they take reasonable risks, they need not fear being fired for them, Whitacre said.
"We want you to step up. We don't want any bureaucracy," Whitacre said. "We're not going to make it if you won't take a risk and step up and be held accountable for it."
But as with most of this GM and Chrysler story, it's about powerful political and business groups calling in their IOU's to politicians, to protect their groups fiefdoms and personal-troughs.
Exactly. Which is why GM will still probably fail. If the economy comes back and they manage to survive, they'll just die in the next recession.
It's like the terminal cancer patient. You spend another $250K to give chemo and radiation. The patient's quality of life sucks and you add 6 months to their life, then they die anyway. At great cost.
The negativity just oozes out of some posts repeatedly. They just hope that the company dies and it's clear in the posts.
Rather than repeating the same negative hopes, let's post some of the good things about GM and the Chrysler company. People should want the US companies in the US to survive and make jobs for their fellow citizens.
The negativity just oozes out of some posts repeatedly. They just hope that the company dies.
Yes I hope GM and Chrysler die. I'm hoping their way of doing business and these corporate entities fail. BUT don't confuse that with I hope the U.S. auto industry is non-existent, and the workers all are unemployed and destitute. I want the corporate entities of GM and Chrysler to be replaced, by 2 other corporations C and D, which operate smartly such that they don't require U and I to pay for their continuing failure.
Just as you don't see any Wang, Digital, or IBM PC's these days, as they were allowed to fail and be replaced by successful enterprises, Chrysler and GM should be allowed to fail, and Ford and others can step in and replace them, without government help.
If you want some positive-spin, google Rick Wagonner video-clips during his last few months where he kept claiming all was well in GM and bankruptcy was not an option. Watch the Idiot-GM-exec. if he makes you feel warm-and-fuzzy.
Thank you for your report. It sounds like you are upset with the idea they are getting government money. Do you realize the few billions for GM and C pale in comparison to the rampant amounts spent by the government on financial market bailouts and on banks failing (FDIC funding) and other things in the so-called stimulus spending bill? I saw an article Also spending by state and local (and maybe some federal grants) to help foreign makers build plants, train and employ workers also has come out of our pockets the last few decades? Is that spending okay?
Other countries have funded auto manufacturers sited in their country, Japan, e.g. Is that right but it's wrong for US to subsidize US companies?
How did you feel about the dumping of products, including automobiles, in the 70s, 80s, where foreign companies sold products below true market value here, just to keep their homeland companies producing rather than having to unemploy people?
Here are some top candidates for the next CEO of General Motors Co., according to auto industry experts and insiders.
_ Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of Nissan Motor Co.
_ Roger Penske, CEO of auto dealership chain Penske Automotive Group Inc.
_ John Krafcik, CEO of Hyundai Motor America
_ Joe Hinrichs, Ford Motor Co. group vice president and president of Asia Pacific and Africa
_ Derrick Kuzak, Ford group vice president of global product development
_ Jim Farley, Ford group vice president of global marketing and Canada, Mexico and South America
_ Mark Fields, Ford executive vice president and president of the Americas
_ Mike Jackson, CEO of dealership chain AutoNation Inc.
_ Robert W. Lane, chairman of Deere & Co.
_ Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar Inc.
Too bad all of them would not be paid even a fraction of their current comp. under the Government Motors requirements.
GM's next boss must have patience and independent means. With some US$70-billion of taxpayer aid, the carmaker cannot offer bumper compensation packages.
That means hoping for a slug of equity -- and waiting for an eventual initial public offering. Finding all that in one candidate could prove to be a tall order.
Although it is a fact that big car companies can't turn on a dime, I think it is a little premature to say that Mulally has succeeded. Last I checked the only companies that really had sales increases in the past year are Hyundai and Subaru. Plus, most of Ford's market share gains are based on GM's demise.
Nope-Kia Motors has sold 8% more cars the first 11 months of 2009 compared to the first 11 months of 2008 in the U.S.
I was comparing awd to awd, so relatively speaking, it's the same.
Where I began to question some of the options would be like heated seats. I don't recall seeing it on the Caddy, but if you click on the option package info., it's there. So I can see us optioning a car up with double options (for example, one of the cars has 5 different paint schemes at $995 each. One would assume if you click on 2, the last one would stay and the first would be cancelled out, but it allowed me to click on all 5 paints, which would be impossible to order).
In any case, $3-4K is less than 10%. If you negotiate good, you may get it to less than 5%. At that point, what you prefer is what is going to rule the roost, and not the actual dollar amount.
"Lutz will remain part of the team but in a role that returns him more closely involved with designing and development new models, and less with marketing. He will be "more like the conscience for the product in the company."
So, when a management fails repeatedly, we should assume the Government can set the new corporation straight and invest Billions more after the business bled billions and not post any negative comments on these events.
GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles
GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car) Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)
Hmm, OK. I agree some of the new cars are much better now. The rest still are second rate at best. (By the way, I own one of the rest.).
Do you realize the few billions for GM and C pale in comparison to the rampant amounts spent by the government on financial market bailouts and on banks failing (FDIC funding) and other things in the so-called stimulus spending bill?
It's not a few billion. There were several rounds of checks, and don't forget the foriveness of all that debt they had. More like $70B has been given away. And if you look at the financial pages, Citi is repaying it's $40B loan now, and AIG just made a $30B payment.
If I was in charge I would let Wall Street and anyone else fail. I would charge the heads of these firms under the Patriot Act of undermining the country. The executives and any other major beneficiaries would be stripped of their jobs, any gains over the years, and jailed indefinitely.
I'm not interested in what other socialist schemes other countries are running. It is near crossing the lines of our Constitution when the government decides what industries get special treatment, and which don't.
The D3 are not losing the auto-war because the foreign companies are dumping low-price, state-sponsored vehicles here. The D3 are losing the war because people with money for a ne wvehicle rather pay $5K more for a similarly equipped BMW or Lexus than a Cadillac, throughout GM's product-line, and 2) the average price due to the high wages in the U.S. auto-industry are too high for the average U.S. citizen! It is fairly hard to sell a $25K vehicle to the average person making $45K before taxes!
Maybe the suppliers and GM need to get a labor force that gets an average of $20/hr with average benefits?
Citi is repaying it's $40B loan now, and AIG just made a $30B payment.
I thought they were just converting debt to equity and now Uncle is each of their major stockholder instead of debtholder? I don't think these two firms have paid much direct cash back. The worst part of AIG was that none of their clients like Goldman Sachs took a haircut while the government bailed them out. Of course I believe then Sec of Treasury Paulson from the George W admin was a previous Goldman Sachs executive and Goldman was involved with AIG before the failure? I never will understand the logic of bailing out AIG and how they decided which Wall Street firms got bailed and which got killed. Incidently, governments can provide direct bailouts of cash or indirect bailouts of special tax treatments, sweetheart contracts and the like, and it is pretty common throughout the world. Personally, I don't understand the Chrysler bailout given their product and quality history, their relatively small size in the industry and their private hedge fund ownership (Maybe Goldman had their hand in this too?), but I'm not that worked up about GM except that the money needs to stop now. GM was small dollar potatoes compared to Wall Street and probably directly and indirectly employed a lot more people. I'm concerned about Ford's current very large debt load and disadvantaged UAW contract. It may get ugly for them in the not too distant future despite their valiant efforts.
>2) the average price due to the high wages in the U.S. auto-industry are too high for the average U.S. citizen! >Maybe the suppliers and GM need to get a labor force that gets an average of $20/hr with average benefits?
Spot on with those. The wages needed to be reduced for the highest seniority of UAW and other workers, not just for the new guys coming in to be severely underpaid so that the high paid top guys don't take a cut. The problem is the attitude and operation of the union to protect the top wage earners who bled the companies dry during the 80s and 90s and on.
So the government didn't actually do anything about erasing the union contract inequity in wages for the top seniority guys. The government didn't get rid of the union contract. The government kept union involved in the company. That was the mistake on the part of the US government. And that's for another topic.
Now for years people kvetched about this and that on GM cars. They always found something when comparing a similar car to one they personally preferred from a foreign maker. There was always something to gripe about that completely negated any possibility of the car lasting more than 25000 miles. E.g., the door handles were too wide. The door handles were too narrow. The paint colors offered weren't up the the superdooper green offered by their favorite company in their favorite car model. The car's ride was too harsh. The car's ride was too gentle. The car only had four transmissionn speeds and their favorite car had (has) 5. But now the cars from GM has 6-speed transmissions and the other foreign car has 5, that doesn't seem to get mentioned now... grin.
To wit the upcoming 4-cylinder in a LaCrosse is already deemed too underpowered by some. But for years they were complaining that GM needed to offer more 4-cylinders!!! Now they're getting one, and it still doesn't satisfy their Car&Driver like mentality. Of course if the 4-cylinder can't be bashed on true merits since no one's driven a LaCrosse on the road with one in it, we can always bash based on something called "refinement." "It lacks refinement."
So I don't see any need to repeated interject anyone's continual bias against GM into this one discussion which is about GM News, New Models and Market Share. I'll suggest a new forum, "Why I hate GM and Want It to Fail" to the hosts.
As for the News end of this, I would think most people would want GM to succeed and continue to provide jobs, overpaid though part of those jobs may be through union wage Bias. Perhaps it's that I live in an area that has lost many GM and supplier plants during the last 15-20 years and lots of jobs, 10s of thousands. So wanting more production of parts everywhere and assembly jobs everywhere to disappear doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Well, my family and I have supported GM through the years by buying their products but until recently, these products were spotty in terms of quality and reliability at best.
It's reality that they went bankrupt for many reasons. It's not about hate it's about failure despite being the best at one time, GM is now fighting for it's second life on life support.
It's all over the news, like it or not. If the jobs go, there is only one place to blame and everyone knows where that is.
Your last paragraph explaining that you live in an area that has lost many GM and supplier jobs explains why your views are so pro Detroit 3. In your past posts you tried your best to point out the Toyota engine sludge problems and Honda transmission problems but to no avail I guess.
I am an import owner. I own a 1990 Toyota, 1990 Honda, and 2001 Mercedes. Not new cars but I am satisfied with them.
But I do see where you are coming from and sympathise with many of your views.
In my Queens, New York City neighborhood I do see a few Buicks here and there driven mainly by older conservative residents. When I see them they are sought of a reminder of the past. Like they are trying to preserve something that is not sustainable in the long run.
Now for years people kvetched about this and that on GM cars. They always found something when comparing a similar car to one they personally preferred from a foreign maker. There was always something to gripe about that completely negated any possibility of the car lasting more than 25000 miles. E.g., the door handles were too wide. The door handles were too narrow. The paint colors offered weren't up the the superdooper green offered by their favorite company in their favorite car model. The car's ride was too harsh. The car's ride was too gentle. The car only had four transmissionn speeds and their favorite car had (has) 5. But now the cars from GM has 6-speed transmissions and the other foreign car has 5, that doesn't seem to get mentioned now... grin.
To wit the upcoming 4-cylinder in a LaCrosse is already deemed too underpowered by some. But for years they were complaining that GM needed to offer more 4-cylinders!!! Now they're getting one, and it still doesn't satisfy their Car&Driver like mentality. Of course if the 4-cylinder can't be bashed on true merits since no one's driven a LaCrosse on the road with one in it, we can always bash based on something called "refinement." "It lacks refinement."
This is being somewhat disingenuous and is an insult to all the buyers that found GM lacking, or had many problems. While there is a bit of truth (there are always fanboys for any make and irrational haters of any make), it can't be denied the generally inferior quality when compared to the competition and multitude of problems with GM over the past 30 years. Yes, they have some very good vehicles, but a high fraction of them were lacking. Very few vehicles were leaders in their segments. Failing to acknowledge this is missing something that a huge number of consumers didn't miss. No matter what any of us posters in this forum say, WE are not the ones that left GM in droves and put it in the position it finds itself at this point in time.
I know that one of the reasons that I read and post here is that I've been waiting for 30 years for a US make I can be proud of. I don't hate US makes, I want to see EXCELLENCE from at least one of them. I'm currently proudest of Ford and it is a shame that due to the bailouts of GM and C, Ford will have a greater competitive disadvantage than it should have. While I own foreign nameplates, I'd be thrilled to buy a US nameplate from a company that has a good track record and builds excellent vehicles. Currently the closest vehicle like that is probably the Fusion (US nameplate, not assembled in US).
Exactly. Many of us want to purchase American cars, but we want an excellent car with appropriate quality and customer service that's actually worth the money.
So far, even the best GM makes are not worth the inflated price. The Lacrosse should top out out $30K. This is a new economy. If Buick really wanted to get in the game, pricing will be paramount. Same with CTS and Camaro.
Tacking on gobs of unnecessary dealer options and jacking up the price on decent models shows a tactic that ends in Bankruptcy. GTO and G8 are examples that proves to GM it never works....and then the only car worthy of Pontiac (of old) is cancelled??? Thinking out of the box at it's best!
Save the high prices for halo cars like the ZR1.
Wake me up when GM beats the Accord, Camry, Fusion, CR-V, Escape, Altima , Civic, Corolla, Rav4, 3 series, 1 Series,.....
Exactly. Many of us want to purchase American cars, but we want an excellent car with appropriate quality and customer service that's actually worth the money.
Unfortunately, I haven't found one yet. Many have read my rants about GM regarding the '00 Suburban I owned, well I dumped that for an 07 Expedition which at first I thought was a good vehicle but now I'm beginning to question why I bought a domestic vehicle again.
During the last week it developed a miss when the engine is cold but goes away when fully warm. This eventually caused a check engine light. Not a big deal, it has 59k miles on it. I figured it's something simple like a sensor or coil etc. The good news is the dealer says it's a coil. The bad news is they recommend changing all of the spark plugs.
Spark plugs should not be a big deal (where not talking about a Ferrari), but with Ford apparently they are. When they designed the 3v heads for the 5.4, they created a two piece type Spark plug with an extended electrode shield of some kind. Well, thanks to Fords great engineering, these plugs are breaking at a high rate upon removal. There is a special tool to remove the plug if it breaks, but it's not a guarantee they can get the plug out. If this happens the heads have to be pulled to get the damn spark plugs out. So you can guess how much that could cost.
Since the coil had to be ordered I won't find out until Tuesday what I'm in for with the spark plugs. The dealer are telling me $725 for the coil and plug replacement, but a 1/2 hour or so of extra labor is usually require on every plug that breaks, so that could be an extra 4 hours at shop rate. If they can't get one out, look out, it could end up being a $3k tune up.
The service rep at the dealer flat out admitted this plug issue is a horrible design and Ford has done nothing to fix the issue other than coming up with a removal procedure and adding a tube of "never seize" with the replacement plugs.
Not surprisingly, a class action lawsuit is developing in California regarding this issue.
And we wonder why customers are leaving these companies? Depending how this issue plays out (if heads have to be pulled) I guarantee I won't own this vehicle when it's time to replace the plugs again and if that's the case, I seriously doubt it will be a Ford that replaces it.
So far, even the best GM makes are not worth the inflated price. The Lacrosse should top out out $30K. This is a new economy. If Buick really wanted to get in the game, pricing will be paramount. Same with CTS and Camaro.
I understand what your saying, but GM is not doing anything much different than anyone else IMO. A Fusion, Taurus, Malibu, Camry, Altima, Legacy, and Accord etc., all can list over $30k. To me, the LaCrosse should be a bit more premium than all of the vehicles I listed except for maybe the Taurus, as Ford has taken it upmarket and can cost over $40k. But the more you go over $30k, the tougher the competition is, just a lot of cars in the $35-45k range.
Exactly! GM is not doing anything special at all. At least Hyundai came up with the Assurance plan that touched many customers and is one of the main factors in their success while all the other still struggle.
As far as a Buick being premium, the best selling one is still a gas guzzling SUV (29,286 in 2007 and 44,706 in 2008 and YTD Nov. 2009 is at 37,701 which is 9% lower than 2008 YTD Nov.). Caddy and Buick are down 36.2% and 29.8% on the Division level. It's easy to see Buick is horrid in car sales (-39.3%).
Believe me, I'll not hold my breath to wait for a "Breath of Fresh Air" coming out of a company that can't get out of it's own way. Whitacre or no Whitacre.
So far, even the best GM makes are not worth the inflated price. The Lacrosse should top out out $30K. This is a new economy. If Buick really wanted to get in the game, pricing will be paramount. Same with CTS and Camaro.
You keep harping on the pricing aspect but GM pricing just isn't that out of whack like you think.
The average price of a new car in the us is $28,400.
The Malibu only has four styles priced from just under $22,000 to $26,600. The top end model with the only two real options comes out just under $30,000. AFAIK Chevy still doesn't offer a factory Nav system with the Malibu which is very stupid but otherwise pricing is right inline or the same as everyone else.
A fully optioned top of the line Camry is $32,500 just subtract the nav and again just over $30,000. There is a rebate on the Malibu now but it is only $1,500 bucks so not huge. I agree that the D3 should try to move away from rebates as much as possible but it is easier to reduce a rebate when a car starts selling well then it is to increase the MSRP. A $1,500 rebate on a nearly $30,000 dollar car isn't out of line. It is when the rebates hit $5,000 or $10,000 no a sub $40,000 car that a MSRP adjustment needs to be done.
Volvo did that very thing a few months ago eliminating the nearly continuous $4,000-$5,500 in marketing support on the XC90 and just making two different option packages no cost standard features.
The LaCrosse has four styles ranging from $27,000 to $33,000 AWD is an avaliable option.
The Acura TL has eight different styles. Pricing ranges from $35,000 to $43,000. You could make an argument that the TL is a better car then the Lacrosse and I think it probably is but is it $8,000 to $10,000 better? It certainly isn't better looking.
Lexus has just one trim level for the ES350 and then several options. They do their pricing differently and I don't particularly care for it. Honda and Acura pricing looks confusing but really isn't so bad. There are no options or very few options and every trim level is just a separate version. It makes pricing one used or appraising one pretty easy because a EX-L always has the same stuff in it.
Lexus will have just one or two trims but offer stacking duplicating options and packages which can get confusing and expensive.
A ES bases at about $35,000 but fully optioned goes up to $46,600. Now I wouldn't make the argument that a ES is better then a LaCrosse and it certainly isn't worth $7,000 to $8,000 more then a fully loaded FWD LaCrosse. You have to pull the Collison avoidance package out of the ES since the LaCrosse doesn't have one avaliable now. Doing that the ES tops out at $45,100 and the Lacrosse at $38,600.
You aren't going to price a fully loaded up vehicle like the LaCrosse or the ES350, the TL or any other competitor under $30,000 and make money. Not unless you cut corners on something important and/or make the car in a very low cost area like say Korea or China. I don't think even making it in Mexico would get you to that price point.
To wit the upcoming 4-cylinder in a LaCrosse is already deemed too underpowered by some. But for years they were complaining that GM needed to offer more 4-cylinders!!! Now they're getting one, and it still doesn't satisfy their Car&Driver like mentality.
The problem is that GM puts their small engines in their most worthless cheap econoboxes and can't seem to keep the weight down. So you end up with a 4 cylinder engine in a 3500lb car. Of course it's a slug. Or you end up with a small car that unlike even VW, can't seem to put leather or nice suspension in it. Sure, it gets 35mpg highway, but it's poor even as a rental car.
You aren't going to price a fully loaded up vehicle like the LaCrosse or the ES350, the TL or any other competitor under $30,000 and make money. Not unless you cut corners on something important and/or make the car in a very low cost area like say Korea or China. I don't think even making it in Mexico would get you to that price point.
You will make money if the dealer costs are cut out of the supply chain. All prices drop to raise sales levels at that point.
It's called market shake up...long overdue in the auto world.
I think to get Lexus pricing you'd have to move the LaCrosse up to an entry level Caddy (of course I think the Lexus 350 may be a bit overpriced for what you get). Having said that, GM was very successful in the past with cars like Cutlass. They were better equipped and styled different than a Malibu (until Roger Smith at least) and a got a 10-15% premium in price. I guess the 2011Buick Regal could take on Camry XLE while Malibu competes with Camry LE. The Camry has a pretty wide pricing range, so GM might be successful with this approach. I think Chevy has been a promotional brand for so many years now that high priced Malibu's might encounter some market resistance.
".....It's easy to see Buick is horrid in car sales (-39.3%)."
When I was looking for my Lacrosse, I started in mid July through the end of August, when I bought it. There were no '10's until the first week of Aug., and then only one here and there. The 3 dealers I looked at ( all will remain in business, not being closed by GM) had 3-5 '09's in July, and by Aug. they were gone, and 4-6 Lucernes, and about a dozen Enclaves. VERY little selection. One dealer that also sells SAAB's actually had more SAAB's on the lot than Buicks!!! Now with all the '10's on the lot (all 3 models), sales have picked up (15% over last November). So, that may have a lot to do with it.
Comments
I checked the 335ix, as we were discussing awd, or the most expensive, I forget. What options arent available on the CTS??? Active cruise control?? At $2400, I can control my own, TY. That's just to show off.
Now, I can bring up the "info" on the CTS options, but not the 3 or G for some reason, so we may have overlapping options on the checklist, I dunno. But an AWD G can get up to $45K. So, at $45-$50K we are in the ballpark, and it just comes down to what the customer prefers.
Either way, the customer is getting what they pay for.
That's usually the case.
The board gave Henderson, 51, a 100-day review yesterday on his performance since GM’s July 10 bankruptcy exit, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the discussions were private. He was asked to leave, and several directors suggested that an outsider is needed as CEO, one person said.
Henderson’s exit caps a tenure that included aborted deals to sell the Saturn, Saab and Opel units, a struggle to replace top managers such as Chief Financial Officer Ray Young, and U.S. market-share losses.
and some more...
Last month, Henderson surprised analysts as GM reported generating $3.3 billion in cash in the third quarter and said repayments would start early on $6.7 billion in federal loans. At the same time, he said GM lost $1.15 billion and would consume cash again this quarter.
Whitacre also said last month he favored an initial public offering later than that originally discussed by Henderson.
“Whether it was the sale of Opel or the timing of a GM IPO, it had become clear in recent months that the board and the CEO were not always on the same page,” Himanshu Patel, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst in New York, wrote in a report late yesterday.
The disagreements were “useful in some cases, but probably unhealthy for any company longer term,” Patel wrote.
This shows a fragmented direction, at best, of the ultimate plan GM should take. The financial numbers are also suspect and I wonder how a company generating cash can still loose money. Perhaps that's the real reason Fritz was sent packing at the end of the day.
Full article: Failure at GM...Again!
Regards,
OW
That would be the airlines!
You raise some good points. I suspect that when you have some very strong willed people like Whitacre, Henderson and Lutz the boardroom gets overcrowded and decision making gets difficult. Some are now speculating Lutz will become the CEO, but I think that will probably just bring on some more clashes. The government is the largest owner right now and their man Whitacre has spoken. I wish them well.
There are 3 main, separate reports to any corporation. The one report will look at profit and losses, which are booked at the time of a sale or at the time a liability (ex. buying parts or paying wages) is incurred.
The cash-flow report of a corporation however considers when $ are received, and when bills are paid which is a different time-frame. Most corporations pay bills 45-60 days later. Government loan $ may just being received.
With a corporation in financial disarray right now with supplier and dealer closings and bankruptcies, government loans and credits, and asset reevaluations, it is no wonder that anyone casually looking at the numbers would be totally confused.
The best number we can look at to understand how GM is doing is how many retail transactions do they have when there isn't a C4C program going on. The other number to look at which again may be hard to determine with the various ways GM was given $, is - "how much has the U.S. given to GM? Is it increasing or being repaid?"
It's not fair to compare a RWD CTS to an AWD G. It should be RWD G vs. RWD CTS, which ends up as roughly $42k vs. $45k, respectively. By comparison, the equally optioned 335i RWD costs about $49k. There you go.
With the board doing an about-face, prospective CEOs may be deterred, leaving Whitacre little choice except to keep the job, Elson said. GM is “a sick company with a bad ownership structure and pay constraints,” he said. “It would give any candidate real pause.”
Former director York said Whitacre probably could get the job done. Nor would the chairman’s status as an industry newcomer be a hindrance, said York, was chief financial officer at the former Chrysler Corp. and at International Business Machines Corp. when then-CEO Louis Gerstner saved the company.
“The prototype is in Dearborn, Michigan,” York said in a telephone interview, referring to Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally, who was recruited in 2006 from Boeing Co. and kept the second-biggest U.S. automaker from needing a federal bailout.
While Mulally’s success may influence how GM picks a CEO, with a “strong likelihood they will go outside the industry,” Ford’s experience would be difficult to replicate, said Martin Bohling, global managing partner of Courland Automotive Practice, an auto-industry executive search specialist.
First, Mulally had engineering and production experience transferrable to Ford, said Bohling, whose Chicago-based firm has recruited for GM. Second, CEO pay at GM is subject to review by the Treasury’s special master. Mulally earned $35.3 million for 2007 and 2008, according to Ford filings.
GM’s government ownership and curbs on compensation mean this isn’t a routine search, a process that already typically takes four to five months, York told Bloomberg Television.
“This will be a bone-crushing job for whoever gets it,” York said.
Perhaps Jeremy Anwyl will be considered! :confuse:
Regards,
OW
There's a lot of people at Edmunds who spent years in the industry, so you really aren't too far off with your comment.
Regards,
OW
They need to trash "The System" and reinvent themselves to have better systems than the competition.
Idea: how about a system where I can design on their website a base $6,000 50-mpg 3-wheel GM vehicle, add the options I want, have it painted a color I want, and have it shipped to my house? From time of order to delivery = 8 weeks. I'd bet there are millions of people who would be in a market for a new vehicle if they didn't cost $20,000+!
...or deal with cut throat dealers that just add cost to the delivery.
Excellent idea! Why hasn't any of the auto brains thought of that?
Regards,
OW
Idea: how about a system where I can design on their website a base $6,000 50-mpg 3-wheel GM vehicle, add the options I want, have it painted a color I want, and have it shipped to my house? From time of order to delivery = 8 weeks. I'd bet there are millions of people who would be in a market for a new vehicle if they didn't cost $20,000+!
Yep that's an idea, but the option I'd want is the whole car.
And now there's this on the news:
"General Motors said Thursday it will reconsider its decision to close some dealerships as part of a compromise to stave off federal legislation that would require it to keep dealerships open."
GM agrees to reconsider dealership closings (MSNBC)
The story includes Chrysler. I can see several lawsuits developing now from dealerships that capitulated and already have made changes and closed due to being targeted for closure.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
This will not happen without many kicking and screaming dealers as you noted. Somewhere down the road, the Dell supply chain scenario would work for autos as well. The point is that change is inevitable if the U.S. manufactureres want to beat the competition.
Currently, the marketing is speaking very clearly.
Note the GM line on the 10 yr. chart...Looks like the vapor trail of a once mighty airship headed for inevitable doom.
Regards,
OW
There could be many accounting related possibilities. The operations could be losing money, but GM could be screezing its suppliers and make payments at a later date. Or it could force dealers to make quicker payments. Or it could be not making any capital expeditures. Or could be pension related adjustments. And so on. Since GM is not public, there is really no way for us to figure it out. In any case, the P&L should be the index on the performance of the operation.
Excellent idea! Why hasn't any of the auto brains thought of that?
GM is never going to succeed if they are always following. While I think the Volt is a huge gamble not likely to succeed, you have to admire them for at least trying.
Look at Apple. The MP3 player had been around for a while when the iPod came out. But Jobs at Apple integrated the device, the computer, and the distribution process in a new way and they have revolutionized the music industry. Where is GM's innovation?
For example, are dealers a throwback to the old days? What about dealers only providing service and a few cars for demo driving, then you order online and the car comes in 3-4 weeks? Think of the logistics savings in not storing all those cars at dealer lots. Why not think way out of the box? Why not find a way to put out a less expensive car? What about a small ultra high quality driver like a BMW 3 or 1 style car at a premium price? Why not add $5K to the Corvette and produce an Audi-like interior? Why not put 3 LCDs on the dash and make then entire instrument panel configurable like newer airliners can do? Why not put a wireless link to your home network so your audio system can sync your music library to the car? Why not auto start/stop for even normal gas powered cars to save fuel? Why not auto neutral while at stop signs and red lights to take the drag off the engine? Etc.....
And that was a mistake made when GM went bankrupt - choosing what sort of bankruptcy to do. GM should have been totally shutdown, dissolved in essence - all workers and dealers let go. The government then could have started it up the next week under a new name with a new structure, and new rules and contracts.
Yep that's an idea, but the option I'd want is the whole car.
Yes you might want or need the traditional 4 wheel, 2 ton vehicle. You have many vehicle manufaxcturers offering you options. GM has lost the war in this market and should move on. There is a huge market of people making $<15/hr and people between 16-25 though who can't afford new vehicles. Now if GM had something for them, I think they would find a market to move millions of vehicles.
There are many intersting vehicles that can be built once you move outside the strict and confining rules of what our government requires 4-wheel vehicles to be.
But as with most of this GM and Chrysler story, it's about powerful political and business groups calling in their IOU's to politicians, to protect their groups fiefdoms and personal-troughs. And it is the U.S. taxpayer who's being taken to the cleaners to pay the bill - all in the name of abiding to the laws, because they are the laws and contracts - but let us not question whether the laws are FAIR!
What the government should be doing is what is EFFICIENT, not what is best for themselves and their friends, at the expense of the rest of us.
Certainly the continued financial support of the failed systems at GM and Chrysler are not in the average person's interest. What's done is done - ok. We've supported them. But now we're told there is no real change?! A little trimming of the small divisions? Failure to sell their dead Saab and Hummer. Continuance of the methods and products that caused the bankruptcy? Just add it to the growing debt right - no problem?
"We want you to step up. We don't want any bureaucracy," Whitacre said. "We're not going to make it if you won't take a risk and step up and be held accountable for it."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-12-04-gm-management_N.htm
Exactly. Which is why GM will still probably fail. If the economy comes back and they manage to survive, they'll just die in the next recession.
It's like the terminal cancer patient. You spend another $250K to give chemo and radiation. The patient's quality of life sucks and you add 6 months to their life, then they die anyway. At great cost.
Rather than repeating the same negative hopes, let's post some of the good things about GM and the Chrysler company. People should want the US companies in the US to survive and make jobs for their fellow citizens.
Hope this doesn't happen at GM:
Chrysler uses Italian ad agency.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes I hope GM and Chrysler die. I'm hoping their way of doing business and these corporate entities fail. BUT don't confuse that with I hope the U.S. auto industry is non-existent, and the workers all are unemployed and destitute. I want the corporate entities of GM and Chrysler to be replaced, by 2 other corporations C and D, which operate smartly such that they don't require U and I to pay for their continuing failure.
Just as you don't see any Wang, Digital, or IBM PC's these days, as they were allowed to fail and be replaced by successful enterprises, Chrysler and GM should be allowed to fail, and Ford and others can step in and replace them, without government help.
If you want some positive-spin, google Rick Wagonner video-clips during his last few months where he kept claiming all was well in GM and bankruptcy was not an option. Watch the Idiot-GM-exec. if he makes you feel warm-and-fuzzy.
Regards,
OW
Thank you for your report. It sounds like you are upset with the idea they are getting government money. Do you realize the few billions for GM and C pale in comparison to the rampant amounts spent by the government on financial market bailouts and on banks failing (FDIC funding) and other things in the so-called stimulus spending bill? I saw an article Also spending by state and local (and maybe some federal grants) to help foreign makers build plants, train and employ workers also has come out of our pockets the last few decades? Is that spending okay?
Other countries have funded auto manufacturers sited in their country, Japan, e.g. Is that right but it's wrong for US to subsidize US companies?
How did you feel about the dumping of products, including automobiles, in the 70s, 80s, where foreign companies sold products below true market value here, just to keep their homeland companies producing rather than having to unemploy people?
>without government help.
Are we sure Ford won't need some funding?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
_ Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of Nissan Motor Co.
_ Roger Penske, CEO of auto dealership chain Penske Automotive Group Inc.
_ John Krafcik, CEO of Hyundai Motor America
_ Joe Hinrichs, Ford Motor Co. group vice president and president of Asia Pacific and Africa
_ Derrick Kuzak, Ford group vice president of global product development
_ Jim Farley, Ford group vice president of global marketing and Canada, Mexico and South America
_ Mark Fields, Ford executive vice president and president of the Americas
_ Mike Jackson, CEO of dealership chain AutoNation Inc.
_ Robert W. Lane, chairman of Deere & Co.
_ Jim Owens, CEO of Caterpillar Inc.
Too bad all of them would not be paid even a fraction of their current comp. under the Government Motors requirements.
GM's next boss must have patience and independent means. With some US$70-billion of taxpayer aid, the carmaker cannot offer bumper compensation packages.
That means hoping for a slug of equity -- and waiting for an eventual initial public offering. Finding all that in one candidate could prove to be a tall order.
Regards,OW
Nope-Kia Motors has sold 8% more cars the first 11 months of 2009 compared to the first 11 months of 2008 in the U.S.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Where I began to question some of the options would be like heated seats. I don't recall seeing it on the Caddy, but if you click on the option package info., it's there. So I can see us optioning a car up with double options (for example, one of the cars has 5 different paint schemes at $995 each. One would assume if you click on 2, the last one would stay and the first would be cancelled out, but it allowed me to click on all 5 paints, which would be impossible to order).
In any case, $3-4K is less than 10%. If you negotiate good, you may get it to less than 5%. At that point, what you prefer is what is going to rule the roost, and not the actual dollar amount.
It's good that GM dumped Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, and Saab.
It's also good that Henderson is gone.
The newest vehicles are a lot better.
More GM Gyrations: Lutz to be Reassigned, Reports say
GM Details Management Shuffle
Both links from AutoObserver.
GM sales in 2007: 9,370,000 vehicles
Toyota sales in 2007: 9,366,418 vehicles
GM profit/loss in 2007: -$38,730,000,000 (-$4,055 per car)
Toyota profit in 2007: +$17,146,000,000 (+$1,874 per car)
Hmm, OK. I agree some of the new cars are much better now. The rest still are second rate at best. (By the way, I own one of the rest.).
Regards,
OW
It's not a few billion. There were several rounds of checks, and don't forget the foriveness of all that debt they had. More like $70B has been given away. And if you look at the financial pages, Citi is repaying it's $40B loan now, and AIG just made a $30B payment.
If I was in charge I would let Wall Street and anyone else fail. I would charge the heads of these firms under the Patriot Act of undermining the country. The executives and any other major beneficiaries would be stripped of their jobs, any gains over the years, and jailed indefinitely.
I'm not interested in what other socialist schemes other countries are running. It is near crossing the lines of our Constitution when the government decides what industries get special treatment, and which don't.
The D3 are not losing the auto-war because the foreign companies are dumping low-price, state-sponsored vehicles here. The D3 are losing the war because people with money for a ne wvehicle rather pay $5K more for a similarly equipped BMW or Lexus than a Cadillac, throughout GM's product-line, and 2) the average price due to the high wages in the U.S. auto-industry are too high for the average U.S. citizen! It is fairly hard to sell a $25K vehicle to the average person making $45K before taxes!
Maybe the suppliers and GM need to get a labor force that gets an average of $20/hr with average benefits?
I thought they were just converting debt to equity and now Uncle is each of their major stockholder instead of debtholder? I don't think these two firms have paid much direct cash back. The worst part of AIG was that none of their clients like Goldman Sachs took a haircut while the government bailed them out. Of course I believe then Sec of Treasury Paulson from the George W admin was a previous Goldman Sachs executive and Goldman was involved with AIG before the failure? I never will understand the logic of bailing out AIG and how they decided which Wall Street firms got bailed and which got killed. Incidently, governments can provide direct bailouts of cash or indirect bailouts of special tax treatments, sweetheart contracts and the like, and it is pretty common throughout the world. Personally, I don't understand the Chrysler bailout given their product and quality history, their relatively small size in the industry and their private hedge fund ownership (Maybe Goldman had their hand in this too?), but I'm not that worked up about GM except that the money needs to stop now. GM was small dollar potatoes compared to Wall Street and probably directly and indirectly employed a lot more people. I'm concerned about Ford's current very large debt load and disadvantaged UAW contract. It may get ugly for them in the not too distant future despite their valiant efforts.
>Maybe the suppliers and GM need to get a labor force that gets an average of $20/hr with average benefits?
Spot on with those. The wages needed to be reduced for the highest seniority of UAW and other workers, not just for the new guys coming in to be severely underpaid so that the high paid top guys don't take a cut. The problem is the attitude and operation of the union to protect the top wage earners who bled the companies dry during the 80s and 90s and on.
So the government didn't actually do anything about erasing the union contract inequity in wages for the top seniority guys. The government didn't get rid of the union contract. The government kept union involved in the company. That was the mistake on the part of the US government. And that's for another topic.
Now for years people kvetched about this and that on GM cars. They always found something when comparing a similar car to one they personally preferred from a foreign maker. There was always something to gripe about that completely negated any possibility of the car lasting more than 25000 miles. E.g., the door handles were too wide. The door handles were too narrow. The paint colors offered weren't up the the superdooper green offered by their favorite company in their favorite car model. The car's ride was too harsh. The car's ride was too gentle. The car only had four transmissionn speeds and their favorite car had (has) 5. But now the cars from GM has 6-speed transmissions and the other foreign car has 5, that doesn't seem to get mentioned now... grin.
To wit the upcoming 4-cylinder in a LaCrosse is already deemed too underpowered by some. But for years they were complaining that GM needed to offer more 4-cylinders!!! Now they're getting one, and it still doesn't satisfy their Car&Driver like mentality. Of course if the 4-cylinder can't be bashed on true merits since no one's driven a LaCrosse on the road with one in it, we can always bash based on something called "refinement." "It lacks refinement."
So I don't see any need to repeated interject anyone's continual bias against GM into this one discussion which is about GM News, New Models and Market Share. I'll suggest a new forum, "Why I hate GM and Want It to Fail" to the hosts.
As for the News end of this, I would think most people would want GM to succeed and continue to provide jobs, overpaid though part of those jobs may be through union wage Bias. Perhaps it's that I live in an area that has lost many GM and supplier plants during the last 15-20 years and lots of jobs, 10s of thousands. So wanting more production of parts everywhere and assembly jobs everywhere to disappear doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's reality that they went bankrupt for many reasons. It's not about hate it's about failure despite being the best at one time, GM is now fighting for it's second life on life support.
It's all over the news, like it or not. If the jobs go, there is only one place to blame and everyone knows where that is.
Regards,
OW
I am an import owner. I own a 1990 Toyota, 1990 Honda, and 2001 Mercedes. Not new cars but I am satisfied with them.
But I do see where you are coming from and sympathise with many of your views.
In my Queens, New York City neighborhood I do see a few Buicks here and there driven mainly by older conservative residents. When I see them they are sought of a reminder of the past. Like they are trying to preserve something that is not sustainable in the long run.
To wit the upcoming 4-cylinder in a LaCrosse is already deemed too underpowered by some. But for years they were complaining that GM needed to offer more 4-cylinders!!! Now they're getting one, and it still doesn't satisfy their Car&Driver like mentality. Of course if the 4-cylinder can't be bashed on true merits since no one's driven a LaCrosse on the road with one in it, we can always bash based on something called "refinement." "It lacks refinement."
This is being somewhat disingenuous and is an insult to all the buyers that found GM lacking, or had many problems. While there is a bit of truth (there are always fanboys for any make and irrational haters of any make), it can't be denied the generally inferior quality when compared to the competition and multitude of problems with GM over the past 30 years. Yes, they have some very good vehicles, but a high fraction of them were lacking. Very few vehicles were leaders in their segments. Failing to acknowledge this is missing something that a huge number of consumers didn't miss. No matter what any of us posters in this forum say, WE are not the ones that left GM in droves and put it in the position it finds itself at this point in time.
I know that one of the reasons that I read and post here is that I've been waiting for 30 years for a US make I can be proud of. I don't hate US makes, I want to see EXCELLENCE from at least one of them. I'm currently proudest of Ford and it is a shame that due to the bailouts of GM and C, Ford will have a greater competitive disadvantage than it should have. While I own foreign nameplates, I'd be thrilled to buy a US nameplate from a company that has a good track record and builds excellent vehicles. Currently the closest vehicle like that is probably the Fusion (US nameplate, not assembled in US).
Tacking on gobs of unnecessary dealer options and jacking up the price on decent models shows a tactic that ends in Bankruptcy. GTO and G8 are examples that proves to GM it never works....and then the only car worthy of Pontiac (of old) is cancelled??? Thinking out of the box at it's best!
Save the high prices for halo cars like the ZR1.
Wake me up when GM beats the Accord, Camry, Fusion, CR-V, Escape, Altima , Civic, Corolla, Rav4, 3 series, 1 Series,.....
Regards,
OW
Unfortunately, I haven't found one yet. Many have read my rants about GM regarding the '00 Suburban I owned, well I dumped that for an 07 Expedition which at first I thought was a good vehicle but now I'm beginning to question why I bought a domestic vehicle again.
During the last week it developed a miss when the engine is cold but goes away when fully warm. This eventually caused a check engine light. Not a big deal, it has 59k miles on it. I figured it's something simple like a sensor or coil etc. The good news is the dealer says it's a coil. The bad news is they recommend changing all of the spark plugs.
Spark plugs should not be a big deal (where not talking about a Ferrari), but with Ford apparently they are. When they designed the 3v heads for the 5.4, they created a two piece type Spark plug with an extended electrode shield of some kind. Well, thanks to Fords great engineering, these plugs are breaking at a high rate upon removal. There is a special tool to remove the plug if it breaks, but it's not a guarantee they can get the plug out. If this happens the heads have to be pulled to get the damn spark plugs out. So you can guess how much that could cost.
Since the coil had to be ordered I won't find out until Tuesday what I'm in for with the spark plugs. The dealer are telling me $725 for the coil and plug replacement, but a 1/2 hour or so of extra labor is usually require on every plug that breaks, so that could be an extra 4 hours at shop rate. If they can't get one out, look out, it could end up being a $3k tune up.
The service rep at the dealer flat out admitted this plug issue is a horrible design and Ford has done nothing to fix the issue other than coming up with a removal procedure and adding a tube of "never seize" with the replacement plugs.
Not surprisingly, a class action lawsuit is developing in California regarding this issue.
And we wonder why customers are leaving these companies? Depending how this issue plays out (if heads have to be pulled) I guarantee I won't own this vehicle when it's time to replace the plugs again and if that's the case, I seriously doubt it will be a Ford that replaces it.
I understand what your saying, but GM is not doing anything much different than anyone else IMO. A Fusion, Taurus, Malibu, Camry, Altima, Legacy, and Accord etc., all can list over $30k. To me, the LaCrosse should be a bit more premium than all of the vehicles I listed except for maybe the Taurus, as Ford has taken it upmarket and can cost over $40k. But the more you go over $30k, the tougher the competition is, just a lot of cars in the $35-45k range.
As far as a Buick being premium, the best selling one is still a gas guzzling SUV (29,286 in 2007 and 44,706 in 2008 and YTD Nov. 2009 is at 37,701 which is 9% lower than 2008 YTD Nov.). Caddy and Buick are down 36.2% and 29.8% on the Division level. It's easy to see Buick is horrid in car sales (-39.3%).
Believe me, I'll not hold my breath to wait for a "Breath of Fresh Air" coming out of a company that can't get out of it's own way. Whitacre or no Whitacre.
Regards,
OW
You keep harping on the pricing aspect but GM pricing just isn't that out of whack like you think.
The average price of a new car in the us is $28,400.
The Camry has ten different styles priced from about $19,000 to almost $29,000 before options Oh and that doesn't even include the hybrid.
The Fusion has six styles, again not including hybrid priced from about $19,000 to $28,000
The Accord has 13 styles for the sedan but 25 styles total when you add in the coupe. Pricing goes from $22,500 to just over $31,000
The Malibu only has four styles priced from just under $22,000 to $26,600. The top end model with the only two real options comes out just under $30,000. AFAIK Chevy still doesn't offer a factory Nav system with the Malibu which is very stupid but otherwise pricing is right inline or the same as everyone else.
A fully optioned top of the line Camry is $32,500 just subtract the nav and again just over $30,000. There is a rebate on the Malibu now but it is only $1,500 bucks so not huge. I agree that the D3 should try to move away from rebates as much as possible but it is easier to reduce a rebate when a car starts selling well then it is to increase the MSRP. A $1,500 rebate on a nearly $30,000 dollar car isn't out of line. It is when the rebates hit $5,000 or $10,000 no a sub $40,000 car that a MSRP adjustment needs to be done.
Volvo did that very thing a few months ago eliminating the nearly continuous $4,000-$5,500 in marketing support on the XC90 and just making two different option packages no cost standard features.
The LaCrosse has four styles ranging from $27,000 to $33,000 AWD is an avaliable option.
The Acura TL has eight different styles. Pricing ranges from $35,000 to $43,000. You could make an argument that the TL is a better car then the Lacrosse and I think it probably is but is it $8,000 to $10,000 better? It certainly isn't better looking.
Lexus has just one trim level for the ES350 and then several options. They do their pricing differently and I don't particularly care for it. Honda and Acura pricing looks confusing but really isn't so bad. There are no options or very few options and every trim level is just a separate version. It makes pricing one used or appraising one pretty easy because a EX-L always has the same stuff in it.
Lexus will have just one or two trims but offer stacking duplicating options and packages which can get confusing and expensive.
A ES bases at about $35,000 but fully optioned goes up to $46,600. Now I wouldn't make the argument that a ES is better then a LaCrosse and it certainly isn't worth $7,000 to $8,000 more then a fully loaded FWD LaCrosse. You have to pull the Collison avoidance package out of the ES since the LaCrosse doesn't have one avaliable now. Doing that the ES tops out at $45,100 and the Lacrosse at $38,600.
Lexus ES350
You aren't going to price a fully loaded up vehicle like the LaCrosse or the ES350, the TL or any other competitor under $30,000 and make money. Not unless you cut corners on something important and/or make the car in a very low cost area like say Korea or China. I don't think even making it in Mexico would get you to that price point.
The problem is that GM puts their small engines in their most worthless cheap econoboxes and can't seem to keep the weight down. So you end up with a 4 cylinder engine in a 3500lb car. Of course it's a slug. Or you end up with a small car that unlike even VW, can't seem to put leather or nice suspension in it. Sure, it gets 35mpg highway, but it's poor even as a rental car.
You will make money if the dealer costs are cut out of the supply chain. All prices drop to raise sales levels at that point.
It's called market shake up...long overdue in the auto world.
Regards,
OW
It is??? When did they start making a BOF Buick again??? Gas guzzling eh?? FE is as good as anything in it's class for a CUV:
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?basestyleid=101142322&- styleid=101037425&styleid=101187517&styleid=101135348&styleid=101173977&maxvehic- les=5&refid=&op=3&tab=specs
Oh, but you said SUV, not CUV. Look comparable cargo capacity, yet 33% BETTER fuel economy than the Infinity QX 56:
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?basestyleid=101142322&- styleid=101037425&styleid=101187517&styleid=101135348&styleid=101173977&maxvehic- les=5&refid=&op=3&tab=specs
So much for "Gas Guzzling"
".....It's easy to see Buick is horrid in car sales (-39.3%)."
When I was looking for my Lacrosse, I started in mid July through the end of August, when I bought it. There were no '10's until the first week of Aug., and then only one here and there. The 3 dealers I looked at ( all will remain in business, not being closed by GM) had 3-5 '09's in July, and by Aug. they were gone, and 4-6 Lucernes, and about a dozen Enclaves. VERY little selection. One dealer that also sells SAAB's actually had more SAAB's on the lot than Buicks!!! Now with all the '10's on the lot (all 3 models), sales have picked up (15% over last November). So, that may have a lot to do with it.